[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: #> > Another is that if it makes sense, and it causes no problems, #> > there is no reason not to allow it. #> #> A lot of things make sense that aren't worth allowing. #So how about #le be le nanmu be'o kerlo cu barda #for an example. I've actually found myself wanting to be able to say that, for reasons of information sequencing. I don't see why it wasn't allowed. For something to be not worth allowing, and so to be worth disallowing, it must carry some sort of excessive cost (e.g. in complicating the grammar). I don't see what the cost is here. Just to preempt possible misunderstanding, I'm talking about allowing & disallowing stuff *in principle*. I think any *actual* grammar changes considered by the BF will pretty much all fall largely outside the BF's remit. I also think that tinkering with the Formal Grammar is a bad idea; I think that the grammar should be redone in a formalism tailored to the language. --And.