Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X4: Forethought bridi and

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> Why should there be a
> grammatical distinction between bridi and bridi-tail, when there
> is no semantic distinction? This is the sort of modification I had
> in mind:
> 
> 
> sentence = [term ...] bridi-tail | prenex sentence
> 
> bridi-tail = bridi-tail-1
>         [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/ tail-terms] ...
> 
> bridi-tail-1 = bridi-tail-2 [gihek # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] ...
> 
> bridi-tail-2 = bridi-tail-3 [gihek [stag] BO # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms]
> 
> bridi-tail-3 = [CU #] selbri tail-terms | gek-sentence tail-terms
> 
> gek-sentence = gek sentence gik sentence

After revising this to:

> sentence = [term ...[CU #]] bridi-tail | prenex sentence
> 
> bridi-tail = bridi-tail-1
>         [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/ tail-terms] ...
> 
> bridi-tail-1 = bridi-tail-2 [gihek # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] ...
> 
> bridi-tail-2 = bridi-tail-3 [gihek [stag] BO # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms]
> 
> bridi-tail-3 = selbri tail-terms | gek-sentence
> 
> gek-sentence = gek sentence gik sentence tail-terms

it yaccs without conflict, and seems pretty good to me.  It eliminates
the separate machinery of forethought sentence connection and forethough
bridi-tail connection, while still allowing for the latter via the rule
that a sentence may be a bridi-tail.

I have to think more on this, but tentatively I approve X4.
I will write up a formal change-control proposal tomorrow.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.