From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:17 2010 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Dec 4 00:21:07 1995 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X4: Forethought bridi and bridi-tail connection X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 4 00:21:07 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? I said: because it won't YACC unambiguously. I haven't tried the specific set of rules you suggested (as far as I know), but that structure was difficult to get the ambiguities out from. I should also say that a 30 second glance shows it to be in some other areas that you have not discussed, it becomes a superset of what we have now. Of course we would also have t be convinced that it didn't ELIMINATE anything we have now - but all this only if it YACCs (and a BNF grammar change is not enough to determine whether it would YACC). I will pass on agreeing or disagreeing whether there is no semantic distinction between a bridi-tail and a sentence; for onr thing, I am not sure what you mean by the statement. The same sentence written with foreterms and a bridi-tail vs. only tail-terms does have a semantic difference - that of "observative" form. lojbab