Changes between the 2nd and 3rd Baseline Lojban Grammars

[Terminology note:  ek, jek, gihek, zihek, guhek, joik, etc., refer to the
sets of logical/non-logical connectives of the appropriate type, and their
compounds that involve negation of either the preceding or following term
(or scalar negation of the connective in the case of JOI).  This is a useful
shorthand when talking about these families of compounds that are functionally
identical in the grammar.]

Executive Summary:

1)	Change ek+KE and gihek+KE to lowest precedence
2)	Add jek+BO construction
3)	Add various new free modifier locations
4)	Add ZEI compounds
5)	Allow observative after GI in forethought connected sentences
6)	Regularize BOI with free modifiers
7)	Simplify relative-clause connection to "zi'e" only
8)	Allow I+BO at the beginning of text
9)	Allow bare NAI at the beginning of text
10)	Allow any kind of JOI in forethought
11)	Remove POhO
12)	Allow full selbri after NIhE
13)	Disallow NAhE in forethought termsets
14)	Allow multiple I or I+BO at the beginning of text
15)	Allow conversion of abstract and negated selbri
16)	Allow ZAhO+NAI for contradictory negation of event contours
17)	Merge LUhI into LAhE; make NAhE+BO equivalent to LAhE
18)	Merge BRODA and LEhAVLA into BRIVLA
19)	Regularize rule names in YACC and BNF versions and update comments
20)	Revise grammar of relative clause incorporation in sumti
21)	ANNULLED
22)	Change description of Step 5 in preparsing to match reality
23)	Allow CUhE to be logically connected to other tenses; forbid NAhE+KI
24)	Allow KI after CAhA (and including it) rather than before
25)	Disallow NA [tag] after CO in inverted tanru
26)	Allow only selbri rather than bridi-tail after NAhU
27)	Allow I, I+BO, NIhO after TUhE
28)	Create NAU+tag as a non-logical conenctive (probably ANNULLED)
29)	Change MAhO from lerfu-to-operator conversion to mekso-to-operator
30)	Allow afterthought JOI in termsets
31)	Allow JOI+BO and JOI+KE parallel to E+BO, JE+BO, and JE+KE
32)	Allow JAI without following tag, as unclefter
33)	Move figurative markers PEhA and POhA to UI
34)	Allow relative clauses to attach to a full sumti, using VUhO as glue
35)	Allow shared tail-terms on a forethought connected pair of bridi-tails
	(ANNULLED by Change 40)
36)	Rectify relative clause rules in vocatives
37)	Allow relative clauses before morphological names
38)	Add CEhU for lambda quantification (ANNULLED)
39)	Change BO to BIhE in high-priority MEX operators
40)	Eliminate distinction between gekked bridi and bridi-tails
41)	Provide non-nested syntax for nested preposed relative clauses
	(ANNULLED)
42)	Simplify time and space interval modifiers (TAhE/ROI and ZAhO)
43)	Add JEK+BO and JOIK+BO connection for MEX operators
44)	Allow full texts between TUhE-TUhU under all circumstances
45)	Separate I and ijek; reorganize grammar of sentences
46)	Afterthought termsets; termsets without logical connectives
47)	Miscellaneous corrections to above changes


CHANGE 1

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Currently, the logical connective constructs ek+KE (and gihek+KE) have
higher precedence (bind more tightly) than either ek+BO (gihek+BO) or
ek(gihek) constructs.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Give ek+KE (gihek+KE) the lowest precedence among eks (giheks).

RATIONALE:

In 1987 (NB3 = Notebook 3 TLI) Loglan, the equivalent of ek+KE and gihek+KE
had low precedence.  In the first Lojban baseline, ek+KEs had been changed
to high precedence, and in the second baseline, gihek+KEs were changed to
follow.  In writing the logical connective paper, considering constructs
like

	A .e B .ake C .e D

suggested that the most reasonable interpretation is:

	(A .e B) .ake (C .e D)

Therefore, this change restores the original Loglan situation, which
supports that grouping.


CHANGE 2

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Currently, there is no way to group tanru components logically in pure
afterthought.  The only alternatives are:

	X je Y ja Z

which groups left to right as

	(X je Y) ja Z

and

	X je ke Y ja Z [ke'e]

which groups right to left as

	X je (ke Y ja Z [ke'e])

but is a hybrid of forethought and afterthought.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow

	X je (Y ja bo Z)

analogously to

	A .e (B .abo C)

in sumti.

RATIONALE:

Uniformity and flexibility.


CHANGE 3

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow free modifiers (such as subscripts, vocatives, and metalinguistic
comments) in the following new places:
	after LOhO when not elided
	after LAhE for both sumti and MEX operands
	after CO
	after CEI
	after NU[NAI]
	after NA preceding a selbri or a gek-bridi-tail
	after NAhE BO
	after NAhE, except in tenses and within NAhE+BO
		(which are lexer compounds)
	after TUhE
	after TEhU when not elided

RATIONALE:

Increased flexibility.


CHANGE 4

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

There is no way to construct lujvo that involve le'avla or cmavo, unless the
cmavo have been assigned rafsi.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Add the metalinguistic cmavo "zei" (selma'o ZEI) which will join the word
before it and the word after it into a construct treated by the parser as
of selma'o BRIVLA.  More than two words can be joined by using multiple
"zei"s.  The words "zo", "zoi", "la'o", "lo'u", "le'u", and "fa'o" cannot
participate, since they are delimiters of quoted text, which will be
resolved by the lexer before compounding with "zei".

RATIONALE:

Other methods of incorporating le'avla into lujvo are extremely error-prone
and subject to a multitude of special-case tests.  No method of incorporating
cmavo into lujvo has ever existed, encouraging speculative assignment of
rafsi to cmavo that might be used in lujvo.  (TLI Loglan allows incorporating
lerfu into compounds using a 'magic' compounding method.)


CHANGE 5

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

It is not currently grammatical to say:
	ge mi klama le zarci gi klama fa mi le zdani

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow logically connected sentences wherein the first sentence has terms
before the selbri but the second one does not.  (The reverse situation is
still forbidden, because it looks like bridi-tail connection to a LALR(1)
parser.)

RATIONALE:

The previous restriction was arbitrary and unnecessary.


CHANGE 6

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

"boi" gets special treatment unlike that of all other elidables.  In all
other cases, free modifiers may optionally appear after the elidable
terminator (in which case it can't be elided).  Free modifiers must be
placed before "boi", however, because "boi" is used to terminate subscripts,
and subscripts are a species of free modifier.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Regularize the rules for "boi" so that it takes free modifiers after it,
except that no free modifiers at all are permitted on a "boi" that terminates
a subscript.  ("ve'o" already has this split personality:  no free modifiers
if it is terminating a subscript, but allowed otherwise.)

RATIONALE:

Simplicity and regularity.  A new convention is needed for subscripts on
subscripts, however; so we simply declare that consecutive subscripts are
taken to be nested.


CHANGE 7

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Multiple relative clauses can only be placed on a single sumti by connecting
them with logical connectives, namely ziheks.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Eliminate ziheks except for a single cmavo, "zi'e" of selma'o ZIhE, which
places two relative clauses on the same sumti but does not count as a
logical connection.

RATIONALE:

There is some doubt whether any of the ziheks make sense other than "zi'e",
which puts both relative clauses into effect.  Unlike other logical
connectives, ziheks cannot be split up into multiple sentences.  The
existing implementation of ziheks was incomplete, and did not allow the full
functionality of other logical connectives, and there is no easy way to make
them work.  Analysis shows that the most likely combinations of relative
clauses can be easily expressed with other types of logical connectives
within a single relative clause.  The only restriction this places on the
language is the as-yet-unused situation of a non-AND connection between two
relatives of different types (restrictive and non-restrictive).

COUNTER-ARGUMENT (Mark Shoulson):

This one I have some trouble with.  I'll concede that in most
cases, giheks and the like within the relative clause will suffice for
logical connection, but there are some things that we lose by dropping
ziheks.  For one thing, how could we do logical connections (other than
"AND", of course) between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses?  Granted,
I can't think of much of an application for such an animal, but it may be a
needed construct.

Also, we lose logical connections between NOI phrases and GOI descriptions.
This one actually has applications.  For example, a system of locking things
on many MUDs (Multi-User Dimensions:  text-based, multi-user, user-extensible
thingies that are sort of adventure games or chat programs, or something in-
between, depending on how people choose to use them) often works with methods
like "A person who is carrying the key, or who is Herman, can pass through
this door."  In the old method, this is neatly done with "lo prenu poi ponse
le ckiku zi'apo'u la xerman. cuka'e pagre levi vorme".  No muss, no fuss.
In the new method, we'd have to expand out the "po'u" to get "lo prenu
poi ponse le ckiku gi'a du la xerman. li'u", which granted is okay, but
loses the whole point of having "po'u" in the first place (it can always be
expanded).  (Actually, an even more Lojbanic translation, in the old grammar,
would be "lo prenu pe le ckiku zi'apo'u la xerman.", taking advantage of the
symmetrical nature of "pe").

REJOINDER:

Mark has presented the first useful rationale for "zi'a" that I have ever
seen:  "poi broda zi'a po'u la xerman."  Nonetheless, I still think that the
logical problems of "poi broda zi'V noi brode" are overwhelming; if we were
going to split up NOI and POI (and GOI and PO) into separate selma'o, there
might be a rationale, but we aren't.


CHANGE 8

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Currently, a text can begin with a bare ".i" or an I+jek, but not with an
".ibabo".

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow I+BO, I+jek+BO, I+tense+BO, and I+jek+tense+BO at the beginning of
text.

RATIONALE:

Allows people to complete each other's expressions by adding causals,
presuppositions, and the like.


CHANGE 9

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Theoretically a text may begin with "nai", and this bare "nai" is taken as
attitudinal.  However, the parser does not currently handle bare initial
"nai" in embedded texts within quotes or parentheses.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow bare initial "nai" explicitly within the grammar rather than as a
preparser hack.

RATIONALE:

Uniformity and consistency.


CHANGE 10

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Forethought joiks (also known as JOIGIks) are restricted in their syntax.
In particular, GAhO brackets are not permitted in forethought.

PROPOSED CHANGE:
	
Permit any sort of joik, so that JOIGIks are any joik + "gi".

RATIONALE:

Simplicity and uniformity, plus the ability to specify GAhO brackets on
forethought intervals.


CHANGE 11

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Three kinds of fragmentary utterances (bare I with or without jek or modal,
bare number, bare NA) currently have a special terminator "po'o" (of selma'o
POhO).  This terminator is always elidable.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Remove POhO.

RATIONALE:

Earlier versions of the grammar required POhO, possibly due to an
implementation weakness in the YACC version used in developing that grammar.
It is never necessary because it can always be elided, so it serves no
purpose except to clutter the grammar.


CHANGE 12

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Only a restricted form of selbri (simple selbri plus optional linked sumti)
are currently allowed after NIhE.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow any kind of selbri.

RATIONALE:

The former restriction was meant to remove ambiguity, but now that the TEhU
delimiter has been introduced, it does the necessary job, and so a full
selbri is permissible.  This grammar is also parallel to that of MOhE, which
allows a full sumti.


CHANGE 13

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

In forethought termsets, a NAhE is allowed just after the NUhI.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Disallow this NAhE.

RATIONALE:

Nobody can figure out what it might mean to have a scalar negation of a
termset, a construct which currently exists solely to implement a certain
kind of logical connection. What does it mean to scalar-negate not a term
but the logical connection of two or more terms?

COUNTER-ARGUMENT:

Change 30 makes explicit the use of non-logical connectives in termsets,
and scalar negation of such non-logical termsets makes some sense, possibly
enough to justify the status quo, even though no usage has yet been found
to support it.

STATUS:

This change has been incorporated in the current draft of the new baseline,
but will be reconsidered at least once before final baseline for book
publication.  If any Lojbanists can propose an authentic use for the
construct, this will be considered in the final decision.


CHANGE 14

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Only a single instance of I or I+BO (and their related compounds) is allowed
at the beginning of text (per change 8 above).

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow multiple Is or I+BOs consecutively.

RATIONALE:

Symmetry and simplicity.  With the elimination of POhO, multiple Is are now
allowed at the end of texts and between sentences.


CHANGE 15

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

It is not possible to convert an abstract selbri [NU + bridi] or one that
has been (scalar) negated [NAhE + selbri].

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow these forms.  The place structure of [NAhE + selbri] is that of the
original selbri.

RATIONALE:

Simplicity and uniformity.


CHANGE 16

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

PU and FAhA allow -NAI for contradictory negation.  This is not very useful
on tenses (punai = na pu), but very useful for sumti tcita to deny that the
relationship holds.  ZAhO cannot take -NAI, although it is also useful as a
sumti tcita.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow ZAhO+NAI.

RATIONALE:

Consistency and general usefulness:
	mi morsi ca'onai le nu mi jmive
	I am dead, but it is not the case that this is so during my life.


CHANGE 17

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

There are three kinds of qualifiers which can be prefixed to a sumti, giving another
sumti:
	LAhE provides indirect reference, indirect discourse, and
		sumti raising;

	LUhI changes sumti between individuals, sets, and masses;

	[NAhE+BO] provides sumti scalar negation.

LUhI has terminator LUhU; the others have no terminators.  LAhE is also
allowed on mekso operands.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Merge LAhE and LUhI into a single selma'o, with the current grammar of LUhI
but named LAhE (for compatibility with the past).  Allow the same grammar
for sumti and for MEX operands.  Change NAhE+BO grammar to be the same as
LAhE, thus allowing it on operands as well.

RATIONALE:

Proposed changes to the sumti grammar (including Change 20 below) make LAhE
and NAhE+BO messy without terminators.  Merging them with LUhI allows
greater generality (expanding the expressiveness of the langauge) and
simplicity, without needing to add a new terminator.  NAhE+BO is a compound
and cannot be merged directly, but can be made grammatically equivalent.


CHANGE 18

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Technically, brivla fall into three selma'o:  LEhAVLA (for le'avla), BRODA
(for broda/brode/brodi/brodo/ brodu), and BRIVLA (for everything else).

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Merge LEhAVLA and BRODA into BRIVLA.

RATIONALE:

The grammar is identical and the machine parser has never bothered to make
the distinction anyway.  It is a relic of long-ago pre-baseline versions.


CHANGE 19

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Various rule names:
	bri_string -> selbri
	bri_unit -> tanru_unit
	header_terms -> prenex
	utt_string -> paragraph
	cmene_A_404 -> cmene_404
	ekroot -> ek_root
	no_FIhO_PU_mod -> simple_tag
	sentenceA -> sentence_A
	indicators_412 -> indicators_A_412
	bridi_valsi_408 -> bridi_valsi_A_408
	joik_jek_957 -> simple_joik_jek_957
	PA_812 -> number_812
	PA_root_961 -> number_root_961
	BY_string_817 -> lerfu_string_817
	BY_string_A_986 -> lerfu_string_root_986
	modal_972 -> simple_tense_aspect_972
	modal_A_973 -> simple_tense_aspect_A_973
	modal_B_974 -> modal_974
	modal_C_975 -> modal_A_975
	BY_987 -> lerfu_word_987
	space_time_* -> space_*
		(where "*" stands for each of several letters)
	interval_mod_1050 -> interval_modifier_1050
	interval_prop_1051 -> interval_property_1051.

RATIONALE:

Consistency between the YACC grammar and the E-BNF version and other
documents.  Also, this results in no two rules differing only in number.
(Some rules have the same names as selma'o, though.)


CHANGE 20

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

(See JL18 text article!)

Relative clauses on descriptions are grouped by the parser so as to attach
to sumti before outside quantifiers are put on.  The actual semantics of
what is being attached has been pragmatically determined, and analysis has
now shown that this can theoretically be vague/ambiguous or even limiting to 
expression in the language, though workarounds probably exist for all
problems raised.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow the distinction between a relative clause attaching to the "inside set",
excluding external quantifiers, of a description.  A relative clause outside
the KU will refer to the entire sumti.  A relative clause inside the KU will
generally be preposed so as to parallel the historical pseudo-possessive
which is recognized as a transformation of an inside-set relative clause.
However, postposed relative clauses will be inside by default, matching the
way in which the parser inserts elidable terminators (i.e. only if needed).

Comparable expansion of the relative clause possibilities inside vocatives
is incorporated in this proposal.

RATIONALE:

The current grammar appears to group relative clauses with the "inside set"
of a description sumti, that portion of a sumti including from the LE to the
KU which includes the inside quantifier and not the outside quantifier.  In
the case of non-restrictive "lo" descriptions, and possibly some others, this
is not what is normally intended.

Example:  "pa lo sipna noi melbi" groups as "pa <lo sipna noi melbi>"
apparently adding the incidental claim that "all sleepers are beautiful".

The problem manifests itself in various forms more completely documented in
a long paper by Colin Fine, but the bottom line is that the existing grammar
is vague as to what a relative clause attaches to, and there are definable
cases where this vagueness can lead to unacceptable ambiguity.

The proposed solution has the secondary virtues of:

	1) making pseudo-possessives visibly match the parallel inside-set
	relative clauses, but without overt relative clause marking;

	2) making it obvious how to to express a pseudo-possessive with a
	quantifier ("le ci mi broda" is a complete sentence and not a sumti,
	since "le ci mi" is a complete sumti.  With preposed inside-set
	relative clauses, "le pecimi broda" is unambiguously a sumti.); and

	3) the problematical "[quantifier] [quantifier] [description]" is
	eliminated from the language (analysis can give a meaning for this
	expression of "[quantifier] lo [quantifier] lo  [description]", and
	it has even been used once or twice, but experience has shown that
	the analysis is counterintuitive to many people, who see also
	"[quantifier1] lo [description] [quantifier2]-mei" as plausible).

Postposed inside relatives are allowed in all descriptions, so the
preposed/postposed distinction becomes a forethought/afterthought distinction,
which can be valuable.  Existing texts retain their currently official
inside-relative interpretation (unless the KU is explicitly present, a rarity),
which is arguably desirable as the default (though it must be recognized
that there are text examples where the speaker obviously wanted to apply the
relative clause to the externally quantified sumti.)  The negative tradeoff
of this is that KU becomes always required when you want an external
relative clause.  (Other options were considered and rejected by the
net-based Lojban community.)

Preposed relative clauses (but not relative phrases) will almost always
require a terminator, though monosyllabic "vau" is usually as applicable
as "ku'o".

The following analyzes all definite and indefinite relative clause cases.

	Descriptor	External	internal	noi/poi
			quantifier	quantifier
			present		present

	le	no	no	poi
	le sipna poi melbi
	[ro (le su'o sipna poi melbi ku)]
	The sleepers who are beautiful...

	le	no	no	noi
	le sipna noi melbi
	[ro (le su'o sipna noi melbi ku)]
	The sleepers, who are beautiful...

	le	no	yes	poi
	le ci sipna poi melbi
	ro (le ci sipna poi melbi ku)
	The 3 sleepers who are beautiful...

	le	no	yes	noi
	le ci sipna noi melbi
	ro (le ci sipna noi melbi ku)
	The 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...

	le	yes	no	poi
	ci le sipna poi melbi
	[ci (le su'oci sipna poi melbi ku)]
	3 of the sleepers who are beautiful...

	le	yes	no	noi
	ci le sipna noi melbi
	[ci (le su'oci sipna noi melbi ku)]
	3 of the sleepers, who are beautiful...

	le	yes	yes	poi
	re le ci sipna poi melbi
	re (le ci sipna poi melbi ku)

	re le ci sipna ku poi melbi
	[re (le ci sipna ku)] poi melbi
	[The] two of the 3 sleepers who are beautiful...

The Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the "ku",
forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.

	le	yes	yes	noi
	re le ci sipna noi melbi
	re (le ci sipna noi melbi ku)

	re le ci sipna ku noi melbi
	[re (le ci sipna ku)] noi melbi
	Two of the 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
The Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the "ku",
forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.

	lo	no	no	poi
	lo sipna poi melbi
	[su'o (lo ro sipna poi melbi ku)]
	Sleepers who are beautiful...

	lo	no	no	noi
	lo sipna noi melbi
	[su'o (lo ro sipna noi melbi ku)]
	Sleepers, who are beautiful...

	lo	no	yes	poi
	lo ci sipna poi melbi
	su'o (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku)
	At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep who are beautiful...

The following is a more likely example:

	lomi ci cukta poi melbi
	su'o (lomi ci cukta poi melbi ku)
	At least one of my 3 books that are beautiful...

Quantifying the inside set emphasizes it so that the restriction applying
to it seems natural - natural enough that English requires forcing an
indefinite description if there is an inside quantifier.

	lo	no	yes	noi
	lo ci sipna noi melbi
	su'o (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku)
	At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep, who are beautiful...

	lo	yes	no	poi
	ci lo sipna poi melbi
	[ci (lo rosu'oci sipna poi melbi ku)]
	3 sleepers who are beautiful...

With no inside quantifier, the English becomes an indefinite, and there is
no suggestion that there is an inside-set, much less that the relative
clause relates to it.  Likewise in the current Lojban which is equivalent
to the indefinite "ci sipna poi melbi"(which under this change will have the
ku after the melbi to separate from other sumti).

The restrictive clause is unambiguously talking only about the 3 sleepers,
since in an indefinite there is no internal quantifier to put secondary
focus on the inside set - the set of  all sleepers.  If the inside
quantifier "ro" was present, under this change the restrictive
clause would attach to the inside set unless explicitly closed off with "ku".

	ci lo ro sipna poi melbi
	ci (lo ro sipna poi melbi)
	Three out of all sleepers who are beautiful.

	ci lo ro sipna ku poi melbi
	ci (lo ro sipna ku) poi melbi
	[The only] three of all sleepers who are beautiful.

	lo	yes	no	noi
	ci lo sipna noi melbi
	[ci (lo [rosu'oci] sipna noi melbi [ku])]
	3 sleepers, who are beautiful...

The English again becomes an indefinite and the incidental clause goes
outside.  Note that this time, the English remains ambiguous and
odd-sounding no matter how you phrase it:

	?3 of sleepers, who are beautiful...
	?3 of those sleepers, who are beautiful...

unless you go to

	3 who sleep, who are beautiful...

which is better reflected in Lojban as

	ci da poi sipna zi'e noi melbi

which accurately puts the relative clause outside, or

	3 of those who sleep, who are beautiful

which only forces the English back into ambiguity as to which are beautiful.

	lo	yes	yes	poi
	re lo ci sipna poi melbi
	re (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku)

	re lo ci sipna ku poi melbi
	[re (lo ci sipna ku)] poi melbi
	Two of 3 sleepers who are beautiful...

The English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are beautiful, and the
Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the "ku",
forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.

	lo	yes	yes	noi
	re lo ci sipna noi melbi
	re (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku)

	re lo ci sipna ku noi melbi
	[re (lo ci sipna ku)] noi melbi
	Two of 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...

The unlikely English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are beautiful,
and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the
"ku", forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.


IMPORTANT NOTE:

Change 20 is sufficiently major, affecting nearly all of the sumti
grammar rules, that there may be unforeseen side effects.  This seems
unlikely, as analysis so far has shown that the only reduction in expression
is the confusing "[quantifier] [quantifier] [description]" which has a
much clearer equivalent.

However, the introduction of such a major change at this late stage of the
project makes it highly controversial, as any problems may show up too late
to be easily fixed (i.e. after books are published).


CHANGE 21:  ANNULLED


CHANGE 22

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Bring the description of lexer compounding (Step 5 of the preparser) in the
comments at the beginning of the grammar into conformance with the way the
current implementation (as well as all its predecessors) actually do things.

RATIONALE:

The comments in question were written presuming that the parser would use
method 5b, i.e. insertion of lexer tokens.  All actual practice has employed
method 5a, i.e. replacement of lexer compounds by single tokens.  It seemed
to be more useful to document actual practice:  5a and 5b have different
ordering implications.


CHANGE 23

PRESENT LANGUAGE:

The current rules for connecting "cu'e", the tense/modal question, with
other tenses using jeks or joiks are erroneous and hopelessly irrational.
"cu'e je bai" is legal but "bai je cu'e" is not.  Also, "na'e ki" is legal
but meaningless.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Put "cu'e" on a level with space/time tenses and with modals.  No modifiers
such as scalar negation are allowed to affect it.  This is what Imaginary
Journeys (John Cowan's paper on Lojban tenses published with JL16) says.
Put bare "ki" on the same level; this does not affect "ki" following modals
or tenses.

RATIONALE:

The YACC grammar said one thing, the E-BNF another, and Imaginary Journeys a
third.  The Imaginary Journeys version is clearly what makes sense.
NAhE+KI was the unintended result of a previous fix intended to get bare KI
working.


CHANGE 24

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

In complex tenses, the optional CAhA (for potentiality) comes after KI, and
therefore cannot be made sticky.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Place the optional CAhA before the optional KI.

RATIONALE:

Sticky CAhA is not unreasonable.


CHANGE 25

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

It is currently legal, though pointless, to insert NA (contradictory bridi
negation) after the CO of an inverted tanru, rather than in its usual place
at the beginning of the selbri.  Furthermore, it is possible to follow such
a NA with a tag or another NA or various combinations.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Disallow them by splitting up current rule 131, which conflates CO handling
with NA handling.

RATIONALE:

The disallowed constructs have never been used by anybody, have no advantages
over the normal use of tenses/negation at the beginning of the selbri, and
may tend to confuse people if used - they look like a negation/tense that
applies only to the second half of the selbri, a meaningless notion.


CHANGE 26

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

NAhU is used to construct a mekso operator out of a regular Lojban predicate.
The current grammar allows a bridi-tail to be used after NAhU.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow a selbri only, with no following sumti.

RATIONALE:

In a context like

	li by. na'u broda te'u cy.
	the number B # C

where "#" represents the nonce operator, the elidable terminator "te'u"
turns out to be always required.  If it is omitted, the "cy." is interpreted
as part of the bridi-tail.  Reducing the generality of what is permitted
makes elidability much more likely.
	
The original reason for allowing the bridi-tail was that some of the places
of the general predicate may be non-numerical, and allowing sumti permits
those places to be "plugged up" and not used in the operator.  However, the
same effect can be achieved by binding any such sumti into the selbri with
"be...bei...be'o".


CHANGE 27

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Normally, I, I+BO, and NIhO are allowed only between sentences; for special
effects, however, they may also be used at the beginning of text.  This
initial use is not permitted, however, in portions of text grouped by
"tu'e...tu'u". (See change 8, 9, and 14 for related beginning-of-text
changes.)

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow I, I+BO, and NIhO after TUhE.

RATIONALE:

Increased flexibility.  In particular, leading "ni'oni'oni'o..." may be
required to set the maximum level of "ni'o" nesting that will be used in the
text enclosed by "tu'e...tu'u".


CHANGE 28:  (Probably ANNULLED)

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

The draft textbook had a cmavo "mo'u" used to attach a relative phrase to a
sumti 'modally'. i.e. neither restrictively or non-restrictively.  As part
of an early cmavo change, "mo'u" was combine into the non-restrictive "ne"
because at the time there was not seen to be any logical distinction between
the two.  This was an error.

The relative-phrase introducer "ne" is used before a tagged sumti in two
different ways: to add incidental information (the non-restrictive equivalent
of "pe"), and to attach a new sumti to the bridi, modally associating it with
some already existing sumti.  Paradigm cases are:

	mi nelci la .apasionatas ne fi'e la betoven.
	I like the Appassionata, created by Beethoven.

and

	la djan. nelci la betis. ne semau la meris.
	John likes Betty more than (he likes) Mary.

respectively.  In the former sentence, "ne fi'e la betoven." means no more
than "noi la betoven. finti"; in the latter sentence, however, "ne semau
la meris." does not mean "noi la meris. se zmadu", since the information is
essential to the bridi, not merely incidental.  That is, John may like Betty 
more than Mary, but not really 'like' Betty or Mary at all.  In fact, the
second example generally means:

	le ni la djan. nelci la betis. cu zmadu
		le ni la djan. nelci la meris.
	The amount-of John's liking Betty is-more-than
		the amount-of John's liking Mary.

The confusion between the two types of "ne" is unacceptably ambiguous.  The
second type is especially valuable with "semau" and "seme'a", and has seen
considerable use, but this use is contrary to the nominal definition of "ne".

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Assign the cmavo "nau" to the latter use.  Since "sumti NAU tag sumti" is
really a kind of non-logical connection between sumti, it no longer makes
sense to treat it as a relative phrase; this grammar change makes "NAU tag"
a kind of non-logical connective, usable between sumti, tanru units,
operators, and operands only.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT:

This mechanism only works correctly if a second place is implicitly given
the modal or tense tag.  For tenses, the second place is the space/time
origin; for the comparatives, it is what is being compared; for the causals,
it is the effect (and vice versa).  But for a tag such as "bau", using the
x2 place of "bangu" simply isn't useful.

For most uses of this construction, the right thing to do is to use the
actual underlying gismu, which has all the necessary places:  recast pure
comparisons using "zmadu", "mleca", or "dunli".  If you want to
simultaneously make positive and comparative claims, use ".esemaubo".  To
apply tags separately to the two parts of a non-logical connective ("I
in Lojban, with you in English, discuss"), use Change 30's non-logical
termset connection.

It has been argued that the standard use of "semau" in relative phrases is
logically misleading.  If we are saying that "John likes Betty more than
(he likes) Mary", the essential claim is not "likes"/"nelci" but "zmadu" as
stated above, and the main bridi should therefore be "zmadu".  This
essential logical structure is hidden by the status quo, and to some
extent by the proposed change.  The counter-argument to this, that natural
language usage of comparison warrants an abbreviated form, is logically
unsound.

Change 28 will probably not be accepted, and is not incorporated into the
published E-BNF, but is being retained here until all interested parties
have seen the arguments on all sides.

PROPOSAL:

Clarify that "ne semau" is non-restrictive, not simply comparative.  This
means that the example Lojban sentence above requires that John like both
Betty and Mary, in order for the non-restrictive "ne semau" phrase to be
true.  By comparison, the English can be used if John likes Betty, but
doesn't like Mary.

This clarification requires no grammar change, but substantial reworking of
draft textbook lesson 6.


CHANGE 29

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

The flag "ma'o" (of selma'o MAhO) is used to convert a letteral string to a
mekso operator.  It serves to disambiguate uses of "f" or "g" as names of
functions from the identical-looking uses of "x" or "y" as names of
variables.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow any mekso to follow "ma'o".  This involves changing the terminator to
"te'u", the general mekso terminator.

RATIONALE:

Some flavors of mathematics (lambda calculus, algebra of functions) blur the
distinction between operators and operands.  Currently, an operator can be
changed into an operand with "ni'ena'u", which transforms the operator into
a matching selbri and then the selbri into an operand.  The reverse
transaction is not readily possible.

There is a potential semantic ambiguity in "ma'o fy. [te'u]" if "fy." is
already in use as a variable:  it comes to mean "the function whose value
is always 'f'".  However, mathematicians do not normally use "f" as a normal
variable, so this case should not arise in practice.


CHANGE 30

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Termsets are defined with logical connectives only.  Forethought non-logical
connectives (JOIGIks) are allowed also, but only as a by-product of their
grammatical equivalence with geks.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Explicitly allow afterthought non-logical connectives (joiks) in termsets.

RATIONALE:

Sentences like:

	nu'i mi bau la lojban nu'u joi do bau la gliban. cu casnu
	I in-language Lojban joined-with you in-language English discuss.

are not possible without termsets.  The effect of a non-logically connected
termset is to non-logically connect each of the corresponding terms in an
inseparably cross-linked way.


CHANGE 31

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Logical connections can be grouped closely (with BO) or loosely (with KE),
but non-logical connectives cannot, except in forethought.  This is a
hangover from Loglan days, when there was only one non-logical connective
and grouping was irrelevant.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow joik+BO between sumti, tanru units, and operands; and joik+KE between
sumti and operands.  We already allow joik+KE in tanru and operators,
because no cmavo compounding is required.

RATIONALE:

Completeness:  "the set of red-joi-blue and green-joi-black things" can now
be done with "cebo" as the middle "and".


CHANGE 32

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Currently, "jai" (selma'o JAI) is used only with a following tag (tense or
modal), and causes a modal conversion analogous to the regular conversions
expressed with SE.  The sumti normally tagged by the modal is shifted into
the x1 place, and the regular x1 place is moved to an auxiliary place tagged
with "fai" (selma'o FA).

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow "jai" with no following tag.  The semantics is to extract a place from
the subordinate bridi within the abstract description normally appearing in
the x1 place, and raise it to the x1 level.  The abstract description goes
to the "fai" place.  For example:

	le nu mi catra la djim. cu jenca la djein.
	the event-of my killing Jim shocks Jane.

becomes:

	mi jai jenca la djein. fai le nu [mi] catra la djim.
	I shock Jane by the event-of [my] killing Jim.

Exactly which place is extracted from the subordinate bridi is left vague.

RATIONALE:

This construction is a sort of sumti-raising; it differs from the "tu'a"
type because it marks the selbri rather than the sumti.  The whole
abstraction is preserved in the "fai" place if it is wanted, and "le jai
jenca" can be used to mean "the one who shocks" (where "le jenca" would be
"the event which is shocking").  In this case, "jai" is equivalent to "jai
gau".

Note that this type of sumti-raising is semantically ambiguous, as is "tu'a"
sumti-raising.  The natural raised sumti may not always be the actor.  In
the above example, the bracketed "mi" is implied to be the agent because it
is omitted from the abstraction in the "fai" place.  If Jim were also
omitted from the abstraction:

	mi jai jenca la djein. fai le nu catra.
	I shock Jane by the event-of killing.

it is not clear whether it is my doing the killing or being the one killed
is the event that shocks Jane (ignoring the pragmatics of whether someone
who was killed could/would be making such a statement; well-known American
essays such as the hypothetical statements by people who have died in
traffic accidents after drinking alcohol come to mind).  What is known is
that the speaker wants to emphasize the role of "mi", whichever
role he played in the killing.

If it is necessary to raise from an abstraction which is not in x1, a
regular SE conversion following (and therefore inside) the "jai" can be used 
to get the abstraction to x1:

	lo nazbi jai te frica do mi fai leka [lo nazbi ...]
	A nose is the difference between you and me.

Exactly what about the nose that is different is quite vague.


CHANGE 33

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

There are two figurative-speech markers, "pe'a" and "po'a", each in its
own selma'o.  "pe'a" opens figurative speech until closed by a "po'a".
If "po'a" appears alone, it applies to the previous word or construct,
using the same rules as UI cmavo.  "pe'a" and "po'a" are not affected by the
regular long-scope cmavo for UI, which are "fu'e" and "fu'o".

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Make "pe'a" a regular UI discursive, following the ordinary scoping rules.
Eliminate "po'a".

RATIONALE:

The rationale for the original situation was that figurative speech markers
would have a shorter scope than typical attitudinals.  However, none of
this machinery has seen much use, and discussion of figurative lujvo
(which use the "pev-" rafsi) made it clear that the current system was
unnecessarily baroque.  Long-range figurativeness (as in poetry) can
be indicated by "fu'epe'a".  The reason for choosing "pe'a" rather than
"po'a" is twofold: greater familiarity, plus the memory hook "pemci".


CHANGE 34

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Relative clauses always attach to the simple sumti (sumti-5) immediately
to the left; the only way to attach a relative clause to a larger construct,
like logically or non-logically connected sumti, is to bracket the construct
with LAhE...LUhU.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Introduce a new cmavo "vu'o" of selma'o VUhO which serves as glue between a
full sumti and one or more relative clauses (joined with ZIhE, if there's more
than one).  The new construct would have lower precedence than any other sumti
construction.  Therefore, it would be possible to attach relative clauses to a
complete sumti (with XUhO), or to a simple sumti (with no cmavo), but not to
anything in between.

RATIONALE:

The LAhE...LUhU construction has two limitations.  First, it is inherently
forethought in nature, making it impossible to add long-scope relative clauses
in afterthought.  Second, LAhE cmavo have semantic import, so when used
merely for bracketing purposes, it is important that the correct cmavo
("lu'a" for individuals, "lu'o" for masses, "lu'i" for sets) be chosen
so as to have a null semantic effect; this is annoying.


CHANGE 35: ANNULLED

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

It is possible to add "tail terms" after an afterthought-connected pair of
bridi tails; the tail terms are applied equally to each logically connected
bridi-tail.  It is not possible to add tail terms with forethought connection.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Permit tail terms after a forethought connection.  The BNF rule which 
changes is as follows:

> gek-bridi-tail<54>  = gek bridi-tail gik bridi-tail-3 |
> 	tag KE gek-bridi-tail /KEhE#/ | NA # gek-bridi-tail

becomes:

> gek-bridi-tail<54>  = gek bridi-tail gik bridi-tail tail-terms |
> 	tag KE gek-bridi-tail /KEhE#/ | NA # gek-bridi-tail


Normally, the additional tail-terms reduces to an elidable "vau".
Note that a full bridi-tail (possibly with afterthought connectives in it)
is now possible as the right-hand connectand; formerly, afterthought
connectives in such a context would be outside the gek-bridi-tail's scope.

RATIONALE:

Consider:

1)	mi dunda le mlatu do .ije mi lebna le gerku do
	I give the cat to-you, and I take the dog from-you.

These logically connected bridi share the same sumti in their x1 and x3
places, but have different selbri and x2 sumti.  They are therefore candidates
for a bridi-tail connection as follows:

2)	mi dunda le mlatu do gi'e lebna le gerku do
	I give the cat to-you and take the dog from-you.

Example 2 removes the x1 redundancy, but leaves the x3 redundancy in place.
This can be cured by moving x3 to the beginning with a pair of FA tags,
but an alternative construction is:

3)	mi dunda le mlatu gi'e lebna le gerku vau do
	I (give the cat and take the dog) from/to you.

The explicit "vau" here signals the end of the bridi-tail connection; the
remaining term (a "tail term") is shared equally by both halves.  With
all elidable terminators supplied, Example 3 becomes:

4)	mi dunda le mlatu [ku] [vau] gi'e lebna le gerku [ku] vau do [vau]

With this change, a forethought version of Example 3 becomes possible:

5)	mi ge dunda le mlatu gi lebna le gerku vau do
	I (both give the cat and take the dog) from/to you.

which before was ungrammatical.

This change is exceedingly unlikely to affect any existing text; it is
possible that an explicit "vau" might need to be added somewhere.

NOTE:

Change 40 supersedes this change and provides the same facilities
in a different manner.


CHANGE 36

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

There are three basic kinds of vocative phrases:  "DOI name", "DOI selbri",
and "DOI sumti".  (Here DOI stands for possible multiple COIs with or without
following DOI as well).  The third case, "DOI sumti", is the general case
which can handle whatever is needed with some extra cmavo, since "DOI name"
really means "DOI la name", and "DOI selbri" really means "DOI le selbri".

Relative clauses are currently allowed after "DOI name", and either before
or after the selbri in "DOI selbri".  However, if relative clauses precede
the selbri, then a full sumti-tail-1 (essentially a description without a
descriptor) is permitted.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Only allow a selbri in the context "DOI relative-clauses ...".
This allows "DOI selbri" to have relative clauses before or after the selbri.
In addition, a new rule is added allowing relative clauses both before and
after the selbri.  Quantifiers are disallowed altogether.  Legal cases are:

	doi pe mi pendo
	do pendo poi melbi
	doi pe mi pendo poi melbi

all of which are natural and easy to understand.

RATIONALE:

The current language allows vocative phrases of certain types only if
a preposed relative clause is present:  "DOI relative-clauses quantifier
selbri", "DOI relative-clauses quantifier selbri relative-clauses", 
"DOI relative-clauses quantifier sumti", and possibly other forms.  All
of these are meaningful, but their existence makes vocative phrases hard
to teach.

Nothing is lost by making these forms ungrammatical, because if they are needed,
a full sumti can be used instead.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:

Jorge also proposed the form "DOI relative-clauses sumti", but I reject this,
because it would not be clear whether the relative-clauses were to be taken as
inside-the-ku or outside.  There is no other place where relative clauses
can appear before a sumti as such.


CHANGE 37:

CURRENT LANGUAGE

Nothing can intervene between LA or DOI and a CMENE.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Allow relative clauses between LA or DOI and a CMENE.

RATIONALE

This will allow names with relative clauses that are part of the name, like
"la poi banli .karl." (Karl the Great, i.e. Charlemagne) and the like.


CHANGE 38: ANNULLED

PRESENT LANGUAGE:

There is currently no defined way to do lambda quantification.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Add "ce'u" of the new selma'o CEhU.  This is a new kind of quantifier_300,
parallel to number-strings and parenthesized mathematical expressions.

RATIONALE:

Lambda quantification is needed to specify which place(s) of a "ka"
abstraction are being abstracted over.

In early versions of this change, "ce'u" was a PA digit, which would not
require a grammatical change, but would allow lots of new kinds of
garbage.  Now "ce'u" is limited to quantifying sumti and forming indefinite
descriptions.

(This change involved renumbering selma'o CMENE, CO, COI, CU, CUhE.)

OBJECTION:

It is sufficient to make "ce'u" a KOhA, somewhat analogous to "ke'a",
the KOhA used within relative clauses.  Both of these work only in
restricted contexts.  "ce'u broda" becomes "ce'u poi broda" without
change in meaning.

Jorge and And argued for overloading "ke'a" in both senses, but Lojban
Central finds that too confusing.

RESOLUTION:

No grammar change: "ce'u" is a KOhA.  The renumbering of selma'o stands.


CHANGE 39

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

A high-priority MEX operator is created by prefixing BO to it.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Rather than using "bo", use "bi'e" in the new selma'o BIhE.

RATIONALE:

There is a hidden conflict between suffixed "bo" at the end of something
and prefixed "bo", which appears only here.  This does not show up in
Yacc because all uses of suffixed "bo" are within the lexer rules.
Changing to a new flag eliminates the problem.


CHANGE 40

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

geks can be used to join two independent levels, sentence-40 and bridi-tail-50.
The former corresponds roughly to afterthought ijeks, the latter exactly
to afterthought giheks.

There is a limitation in gekked sentences: the first sentence must have
at least one term before the selbri, or the construct will look like a
gekked bridi-tail.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Unify the two types of geks as follows:  unrestricted sentences (including
bare bridi-tails) can be gekked, and the result has the grammar of a
bridi-tail.  This allows currently forbidden sentences like:

1)	gonai catra la djonz. gi la djonz. catra
	Either the-obvious-one killed Jones or Jones killed the-obvious-one.

which currently is excluded because it garden-paths the parser into expecting
a mere bridi-tail after "gi".

We also get a new sentence type consisting of a gekked sentence with joint
head-terms:

2)	mi [cu] ge le zarci cu klama gi le rilti cu dansu
	I both to-the office go and to-the rhythm dance.

Example 2 parses because the gekked sentence functions as the equivalent
of a bridi-tail and can be preceded by head-terms and an optional "cu".

RATIONALE:

The arbitrary restriction on gekked sentences is lifted.   Since bridi-tail-50
has fundamentally the same semantics as sentence-40 (not all bare bridi-tails
are semantic observatives; some full sentences with head-terms are in fact
semantic observatives), logical connectives between the two are naturally
unifiable.

This change is a pure extension: everything sayable before is still sayable.


CHANGE 41: ANNULLED

PROPOSED CHANGE:

A new syntax is added for nested forethought relative clauses, using
the new cmavo "pe'e" of the new selma'o PEhE.  The center-embedding of

	le (poi le (poi le tcadu cu se klama ku'o) nanmu cu se viska ku'o) verba

which is the forethought relative clause version of

	le verba poi le nanmu poi le tcadu cu se klama [ku'o] cu se viska

can be rewritten more clearly as

	le poi le tcadu cu se klama pe'e nanmu cu se viska ku'o verba


	le poi viska le poi klama le tcadu vau nanmu vau verba

OBJECTION:

This change is simply too hard to explain and too complex to work out
at this late date.  Loglan historically didn't have preposed relative
clauses, and they still are not as well supported as postposed ones.
Complexities like this work better in languages where nouns and verbs
are visibly distinct, like German or Finnish.


CHANGE 42

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Lojban uses the same words (TAhE/ROI and ZAhO) for space interval modifiers
as for time interval modifiers.  However, they are distinguished with a
"fe'e" flag proceeding any such modifiers.  The rules for multiple
modifiers are that two ZAhOs may be consecutive but two TAhE/ROIs may not.
This rule applies to both time and space.  Once a modifier has been
given, an interval size cannot follow it.  So the following is not grammatical:

	mi ze'a reroi ze'i klama
	I [medium interval] [twice] [short interval] go
	Over a medium period I go twice for a short period each.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow mixtures of ZEhA [PU], TAhE, ROI, and ZAhO for time; and VEhA [PU],
VIhA, FEhE+TAhE, FEhE+ROI, and FEhE+ZAhO for space.  Note that each of
the space interval modifiers must be flagged if there is more than one.

As a side effect, space information may now precede time information
in a tense.

RATIONALE:

Simplicity and uniformity, plus the ability to specify the size of
subintervals.


CHANGE 43:

CURRENT LANGUAGE

MEX operators, which are meant to be formally parallel to selbri,
can be logically connected by guheks, jeks, or joiks, and can be grouped
by KE/KEhE.  It is not possible to use JEK+BO or JOIK+BO to connect them.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow JEK+BO and JOIK+BO.

RATIONALE:

This should have been done as part of Change 2 above, but was overlooked.


CHANGE 44

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

A (nearly) full text can be encapsulated between TUhE and TUhU long-scope
parentheses if they stand alone.  However, if a prenex or a tag comes first,
only paragraphs are permitted.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow the same things between all TUhE-TUhU pairs.

RATIONALE:

This change is really part of Change 27 that was not correctly implemented
when that change was installed.


CHANGE 45

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Grammatically, I and ijek are treated identically, although in the
semantics, I constitutes a stronger boundary.

Prenexes can be attached only to sentences or to TUhE...TUhU groups, although
logically a prenex can persist across several sentences connected by
ijeks.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Treat I as a higher-priority break than ijek (which is higher than
I+BO or ijek+BO; no distinction is made between I+BO and ijek+BO).

Shift all the sentence fragments (the forms of utterance_20 which are not
sentence_40) to a higher level; they can only be connected by I, not by any
lower-level form.

Attach prenexes to the new level "statement_11"; statements contain ijeks
and I+BOs, but not bare Is.

RATIONALE:

1) It has always been a rule that I and ijek have different semantic
implications: I is a pure separator, whereas ijek connects as well as
separating.  In particular, logical variables persist across ijek
boundaries always, but (by default) not across I boundaries.  This change
makes the grammar reflect the semantics.

2) Logically connecting sentence fragments never did make very much sense,
but was allowed because of the lack of distinction between I and ijek.


CHANGE 46

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Termsets are a pair of term sequences joined by a logical connective;
the start is NUhI and the elidable terminator is NUhU.  The logical
connective can be afterthought EK, in which case NUhU must precede it,
or forethought GEK-GIK, in which case NUhU must precede the GIK.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

The syntax "NUhI terms NUhU EK terms /NUhU/" is REMOVED from Lojban.
It is a hybrid of forethought (the NUhI) and afterthought, and is
overly restrictive.

Instead, a "term group" construct is introduced, joining the terms
with the new cmavo "ce'e" of the new selma'o CEhE.  A logical connective
is permitted but not required, thus:  "term ce'e term ... pe'e EK term
ce'e term ..."  "pe'e" belongs to the new selma'o PEhE.

The corresponding forethought syntax remains "NUhI GEK terms NUhU GIK
terms NUhU", and the syntax "NUhI terms NUhU", with no logical connective,
is added as well.

RATIONALE:

1) Afterthought termset logical connection becomes genuinely afterthought,
without the need for any special start cmavo.

2) Providing termsets without logical connectives (in both forethought
and afterthought forms) provides cmavo grouping to solve two unrelated
problems.  By grouping a "se BAI" with a "te BAI" (or "ve BAI, or whatever)
we can require that both BAIs refer to the same underlying event:

	se ka'a ko'a ce'e te ka'a ko'e

The presence of the "ce'e" makes sure that "ko'a" is the destination and
"ko'e" the destination of the same act of going.

The other problem is that of indicating that two numerically quantified
sumti have co-equal scope:

	ci nanmu re gerku cu batci

says that three men bite two dogs each, for a possible total of six dogs,
whereas

	ci nanmu ce'e re gerku cu batci
	nu'i ci nanmu re gerku nu'u cu batci

says that three men bite two dogs each, the same two dogs.

CHANGE 47

This set of changes resulted from an updating of the BNF that parallels
the YACC grammar.  The BNF had not been kept up to date, and various
discrepancies were found, as well as minor irregularities.

PROPOSED CHANGES:

Per Change 45, fragments were introduced, but could not be used at the
beginning of paragraphs.  Change 47 undoes this blunder.

Free modifiers were no longer allowed after ZOhU or (in some circumstances)
after TUhE, another blunder.  This change restores the capability.

Free modifiers are also now allowed after the new selma'o CEhE, PEhE, and BIhE,
as well as in a very large number of other places where they could have
been permitted before but were not.

The rule space_int_props_1049 introduced in Change 42 was split into two
rules to simplify the preprocessor.