Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i

[Veijo Vilva <veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>]

> 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 am not proposing anything, I was just providing a technical answer
   to Jorge - without comments, pro or con. I'm not too keen on termsets
   without the middle NUhU. They are easy to make to work in YACC but
   perhaps not at the human level (count the terms between the GEK and
   the GIK in order to know where and how the terms after the GIK are
   supposed to terminate, eh? I think I'd rather have the NUhU).

> 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.)

   Agreed.

   Veijo