Re: resolution of open Lojban issues - limited distributiuon message

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

>Termsets:
>
>  After some more thought I think the following will work -- but for
>  forethought connected termsets only:

Which is what we have now.

>terms_80                :  term_81
>                        |  terms_80  term_81
>                        |  term_81 links_161
>                        |  GEK_807 term_81 links_161 GIK_816 term_81
>links_161
>                        ;


Again, I will wait to see what Cowan, pc (John starts getting ambiguous
even in this limited group %^), and Nora say.  If we reach some consensus,
we can go to the list for comment.

Unless there is a forethought JOIK somewhere in the works, we would lose JOIK
termsets.

I like eliminating the special termset words and simplifying the grammar
but this may be too complicated to make sure we aren't leaving holes.

lojbab