From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Mar 12 00:05:34 1996
Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA10788 ; Tue, 12 Mar 96 00:05:32 GMT
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 826570484:04541:0; Mon, 11 Mar 96 18:54:44 GMT
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net
          id aa03968; 11 Mar 96 18:53 GMT
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 6819; Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:53:11 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 1029; Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:53:36 EDT
Date:         Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:58:51 -0300
Reply-To:     "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Message-ID: <826570450.3968.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


>CHANGE 46
...
>The corresponding forethought syntax remains "NUhI GEK terms NUhU GIK
>terms NUhU",

Is NUhI really necessary? Couldn't it be just "GEK terms /NUhU/ GIK
terms /NUhU/"? That would make it much more in tune with the
general use of geks. (Even better if the first NUhU could be avoided.)
I supppose that there must be some yacc problem with that, but
I don't see why. If "ge sumti gi sumti" is ok, why would "ge sumti sumti
gi sumti sumti" cause any problems?

>and the syntax "NUhI terms NUhU", with no logical connective,
>is added as well.

Probably harmless. That means that "NUhI terms NUHU EK NUhI terms NUhU"
would be acceptable, right? Longer than the current grammar, but much
easier to understand. The current grammar, without the second NUhI, is
very counterintuitive for me.

>The other problem is that of indicating that two numerically quantified
>sumti have co-equal scope:
>
>        ci nanmu re gerku cu batci
>
>says that three men bite two dogs each, for a possible total of six dogs,
>whereas
>
>        ci nanmu ce'e re gerku cu batci
>        nu'i ci nanmu re gerku nu'u cu batci
>
>says that three men bite two dogs each, the same two dogs.

I liked this at first, but now I don't know. I think termsets are orthogonal
to the scope problem. Suppose you say:

        ci nanmu ce'e re gerku pe'eje ci ninmu ce'e re cinfo cu batci
        Three men two dogs, and three women two lions bite.

If you use termsets for the scope distinction, then you can't use
them for their simple original function. If you want to solve the
scope problem with this, then perhaps there could be two members of
selmaho CEhE, one for normal embedded scope and one for equal scope?

Jorge