Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X4: Forethought bridi and bridi-tail connection

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>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