Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: FA tagging

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:27:36 EDT

In a message dated 4/13/2001 5:05:37 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> My conclusion from this still is: It is not explicitely disallowed to force 
> a sumti out of its (non-tagged!) place by a FA tagged sumti 
> (coming afterwards) claiming this place, unless that sumti coming first 
> claims its place by the same tag (which then causes the 
> competing sumtis to share the place).
> 
Yes, that is a *possible* reading, but not one that is likely to carry the 
day, since it requires reassigning a sumti to a place after the fact, 
something we have hesitated to do on other occasions (negations are about the 
only significant piece we can mess around with that way and they are such 
high level items that they don't require a lot of internal reworking). 
Imagine working out a whole sentence, then finding a {fa} tag and having to 
shift every sumti one place right and reconstrue! My own personal preference 
is to disallow tags for places already taken, that is to anticipate places 
but not to delay them, unless another tag has apppeared to skip over the 
later place. I don't think that can be a grammar rule without a lot of 
problems, but it sure is a stylistic one I'd come down heavy for.