From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:11 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Fri Dec 1 14:00:58 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X4: Forethought bridi and bridi-tail connection X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 1 14:00:58 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: la lojbab cusku di'e > This one I am SURE won't YACC. We tried - many times. It requires > eliminating the grammatical distinction between bridi and bridi-tail > absolutely, not just in forethought connection. But that is exactly what I am proposing. Why should there be a grammatical distinction between bridi and bridi-tail, when there is no semantic distinction? This is the sort of modification I had in mind: sentence = [term ...] bridi-tail | prenex sentence bridi-tail = bridi-tail-1 [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/ tail-terms] ... bridi-tail-1 = bridi-tail-2 [gihek # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] ... bridi-tail-2 = bridi-tail-3 [gihek [stag] BO # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] bridi-tail-3 = [CU #] selbri tail-terms | gek-sentence tail-terms gek-sentence = gek sentence gik sentence Instead of the current: sentence<40> = bridi-tail | sentence-1 sentence-1<41> = term ... [CU #] bridi-tail | gek sentence-1 gik sentence | prenex sentence bridi-tail<50> = bridi-tail-1 [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/ tail-terms] ... bridi-tail-1<51> = bridi-tail-2 [gihek # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] ... bridi-tail-2<52> = bridi-tail-3 [gihek [stag] BO # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] bridi-tail-3<53> = selbri tail-terms | gek-bridi-tail gek-bridi-tail<54> = gek bridi-tail gik bridi-tail-3 | tag KE gek-bridi-tail /KEhE#/ | NA # gek-bridi-tail The only important difference is that {i cu broda} would be allowed (I don't see why it isn't allowed now), but that can be changed back, although in that case the rules would look more complicated. Jorge