[lojban] Afterthought TAG Termset Connectives

Considering that afterthought TAG connectives take the form of <[connective] TAG bo> where [connective] is the connective of the appropriate connective selma'o, e.g. {mi .e ca bo do}, I would presume that the afterthought termset connective form would be <[sumti] pe'e je TAG bo [sumti]> where [sumti] is >=1 sumti. Unfortunately, of course, this does not parse in jbofi'e.

Additionally, it would appear as though TAG connectives such as {.e ca bo} are not valid utterances by themselves, whereas bare connectives such as {.e} are. I'm not sure that this is desirable, but it does make it impossible to answer {ji}-questions and such with tag connectives. I can think of an example usage inspired by the CLL example of {ji}:

(This example is incidentally unaffected by the connective problem that usually arises when using connectives in non-top-level contexts like {tu'a ko'a .e ko'a}. The problem itself is that it's arguable as to whether {tu'a ko'a .e ko'e broda} is equivalent to {tu'a ko'a broda .ije tu'a ko'e broda} -> {lo su'u ko'a co'e cu broda .ije lo su'u ko'e co'e cu broda} or rather {lo su'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e cu broda}.

A similar, more drastic case occurs in {lo pendo be mi .e do}, which we'd naturally assume is "the friend of both me and you" but it's arguable as to whether {lo pendo be mi .e do cu broda} is equivalent to {lo pendo be mi cu broda .ije lo pendo be do cu broda} or {zo'e noi pendo mi .e do cu broda}. My rationale behind supporting the latter interpretation is that using one descriptor should only create one description, whereas the former interpretation creates two descriptions behind the scenes, namely {lo pendo be mi} and {lo pendo be do} which could be referring to entirely different things. Additionally although less importantly, the latter interpretation seems far more natural, not to mention that to achieve the meaning of the former interpretation using the latter, one must necessarily employ the {zo'e noi} construction, which is unnecessarily cumbersome, whereas with the latter interpretation, one must simply repeat {lo pendo} such that {lo pendo be mi ku .e lo pendo be do}. The only apparent downside to the latter interpretation is that when using afterthought, in order to repeat the main description, a lot of terminators might be required, not to mention that if the description is fairly complex (a four-part tanru) it can become very annoying to repeat it.)

Returning to the main point of this post, considering that termsets is a part of the language that everybody loves to hate, it's unlikely that afterthought tag termset connectives will ever see the light of day, but I don't think that the cmavo required for termsets are going to disappear any time soon (at least not before mekso, for which there remains proponents.) Therefore, I see no reason why this discrepancy between forethought and afterthought should exist. (Not to mention the impossible non-logical bridi-tail afterthought connective, which I wanted to use just today...) Could it be that afterthought tag termset connection was impossible due to a parser limitation? What with the PEG being capable of all sorts of things that the older grammars weren't, could this be implemented in the current grammar? As far as I can tell, making {pe'e JA TAG bo} grammatical breaks no usage at all.