Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:50:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, cowan@ccil.org, pcliffje@crl.com
Subject: Re: resolution of open Lojban issues - limited distributiuon message
In-Reply-To: <199602251438.JAA19889@access4.digex.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960225165211.6761A-100000@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1433


> >term_81                 :  sumti_90
> >                        |  modifier_82
> >                        |  GEK_807 term_81 links_161 
> >                            GIK_816 term_81 links_161 BO_508
> >                        |  NA_KU_810
> >                        ;
> >                        
> >The forethought termset is included twice, once without and once
> >with a terminator
> 
> I don't think this one is acceptable, since it means that BO is a terminator
> and not a link.  You could have all sumti in a sentence separates by BO
> if they happen to be GEKked sumti, and you can have a GEKked sumti followed
> by BO CU before the selbri, or have BO at the end of the sentence.  That
> is counter to all other uses of BO.  Really, you just want an elidable
> terminator to replace the BO in term_81, and I think your term_81a goes away.

   Agreed.

> But this still leaves the question unanswered regarding JOIK and other
> connections that are permitted by NUhI, but are not defined under GEKs
> 

   If we use a terminator, we can handle the JOIKs in forethought 
   _outside_ tanru linkargs, but the only way of doing it inside is
   to use something else instead of BEI to link the terms. The only way
   to avoid a terminator is to do the glueing somewhere below sumti_C_93,
   which restricts the glued terms to being rather simple sumti. This
   would also require a new cmavo.   
 
> lojbab
> 

      Veijo