Re: resolution of open Lojban issues - limited distributiuon message

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

>About termsets:
>
>  Termsets can be eliminated from the YACC grammar if we adopt 
>  some kind of sumti glue along the lines of my intmed grammar.
>  The glue is marked with bo in the following schema:
>
>        nu'i sumti sumti nu'u .e sumti sumti nu'u
>    =>  sumti bo sumti .e sumti bo sumti
>
>        nu'i ge sumti sumti nu'u gi sumti sumti nu'u
>    =>  ge sumti bo sumti gi sumti bo sumti
>
>  The glue would carry no semantic value.


It doesn't eliminate temrsets, but it might eliminate the need
for the bracketing nu'i/nu'us.  There is no construct that allows
"term" as opposed to "sumti" inside a logical connective, and indeed
GEKed sumti are down in the middle of the sumti grammar at rule 93.


>>About termsets 2:
>>
>>BEI can be used as glue at the terms level. So if we exclude termsets
>>from within tanru linkargs, we get a rather regular system: termsets
>>would use bei just like linkargs do.
>>
>>terms_80                :  term_81
>>                        |  terms_80  term_81
>>                        |  terms_80 BEI_505 term_81
>>                        ;
>>
>>  mi klama le zarci bei le briju .e le zdani bei le ckule
>
>It would be nice, but I think we need tanru termsets, if for no othe
>r
>reason than tanru being used in SEI/FIhO constructs.  But then I cannot
>think of too many places where you would want termsets in such things, and
>you could always include them before the selbri. 


No strong feelings, but this really requires others besides me to think about.
Reusing existing constructs is nice, but I am of course resistent to 
overload as in the case of Jorge's ke'a.  Indeed, i still prefer adding
ce'e instead of using BO for the sumti link in whatever termset grammar we end
up with.

I will run these by Nora, though.

lojbab