Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

I willl leave it to Cowan to decide whether he finds the work needed to make
termsets work without the mniddle NUhU worthwhile.  I think I am still
skeptical that it is, and do not mind the middle NUhU as much as the
plurality of rules, though it seems that what you are saying is that all
you eliminate is the direct equivalent of sumti_94 GIks.

I think that termsets and their power have never been well explored, and they
will come to be more useful as people get more fluent in the language, and so
I would rather have a more consistent set of rules, and a broader range of
things called termsets, including single sumti_90, not merely modifier_82
permitted (I can imagine there to be times when brevity might lead to the
BAI put only on the first term in the termset, and not on the others.)

lojbab