Re: YACC for nested preposed relatives

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

Right.  I am so busy with the dictionary that I really cannot give this
proposal proper consideration.  In addition, neither Cowan nor Nick has 
commented on it.  And Colin, who origianlly got us into the preposed
relative clause business, is off-line for another month.  As a result,
I think the time is not ripe for actually considering the change, until
more of the powers-that-be choose to comment (and are available to
consider things).

In my case, I am still back on mail from last MAY, so even when I get some
time, I have to go back and see what other proposals I haven't paid attention
to as well.

Meanwhile, pc is now on-line though on vacation, and he will add still one
more experienced person to the discussions, though he is severely non-net-aware
thus far and will have a learning curve.

The most critical thing about your proposal is the possibility of adding a
cmavo or two, since that has more impact on the dictionarythan a grammar
change does.  We have a hotter cmavo issue right now with this xruti thing,
and Nick's implicit suggestion that we need to be able to use "jai" in lujvo
instead of  -gau.  This may require us to change "jai" to another cmavo
that is in a less dense part of rafsi space than the "jxx" set.  I haven't
yet read to see if this is indeed what Nick is proposing, if he has posted
(your message is first in my queue today).

lojbab