Jordan DeLong scripsit:
> I don't know why the seperate prenex infront of the ".ije" was
> removed from the grammar. It used to be there, and there's even
> examples in CLL which use it (chap 16). In order for the 'external
> bridi negation' rules to work properly it must exist also.
Ambiguity. If a prenex is allowed before each individual sentence,
and also before the group of ijek-connected sentences, we can't tell
when we see a prenex after .i or ni'o or start-of-text which kind it is
and what its scope is.
> I don't know if fixing this is something the BF can do. But it's
> a contradiction in CLL, so it should be at least considered.
I agree that it is a contradiction and should be fixed, but at the
moment I don't see quite how.