Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 09:38:19 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <199602251438.JAA19889@access4.digex.net>
To: lojbab@access.digex.net, veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: resolution of open Lojban issues - limited distributiuon message
Cc: cowan@ccil.org, pcliffje@crl.com
Content-Length: 968

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

lojbab