I would like to make two clarifications.
One: The Idea Was *Parallel* Termsets
I wish I had said this upfront, because it's a key point.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Mike S.
<maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
The syntax allows sequential
TSSs, but disallows TSSs inside TSs. Variant syntaxes with TSSs inside
TSs are possible if something that insane is desired.
That was an overstatement. There could be times when you have three TSs like:
(1) ne'e TS1a&2a TS1b [ne] ne'e TS1a&2a TS2b ne TS3 ne
in which the first part of two of them are the same subTS, and it's not insane to want to have something like:
(2) ne'e TS1a&2a no'e TS1b ne TS2b ne TS3 ne
in
which "no'e" coordinates two subTSs. When I said "insane" I just meant
that things could get complicated, so I decided for the sake of
simplicity that these operators would treat the TSs strictly in
_parallel_, and never in series. As shown previously, _sequential_ TS
structures would be allowed, but they'd occur in discrete parts of a
sentence.
Besides wanting to keep things simple, another reason that I decided
on parallel TSs was the idea that "ne" could be elided if immediately
followed by a TS operator, as shown in (1).
Two: Pseudo-Production Rules
=> la ma djna ne’a ne’e (le nnle li crdi ne) (le nxle li ckti ne) ne’e (le nnle li ckti ne) (le nxle li crdi ne) dndakike