Changes

|}

|}

As given, this particular fragment of the intended grammar contains a couple of features that are desirable to amend.

As given, this particular fragment of the intended grammar

contains a couple of features that are desirable to amend.

1.  Given the covering S :> Conc, the covering rule Conc :> Conc · S

# Given the covering <math>S :> \operatorname{Conc},</math> the covering rule <math>\operatorname{Conc} :> \operatorname{Conc} \cdot S</math> says no more than the covering rule <math>\operatorname{Conc} :> S \cdot S.</math> Consequently, all of the information contained in these two covering rules is already covered by the statement that <math>S :> S \cdot S.</math>

    says no more than the covering rule Conc :> S · S.  Consequently,

# A grammar rule that invokes a notion of decatenation, deletion, erasure, or any other sort of retrograde production, is frequently considered to be lacking in elegance, and a there is a style of critique for grammars that holds it preferable to avoid these types of operations if it is at all possible to do so.  Accordingly, contingent on the prescriptions of the informal rule in question, and pursuing the stylistic dictates that are writ in the realm of its aesthetic regime, it becomes necessary for us to backtrack a little bit, to temporarily withdraw the suggestion of employing these elliptical types of operations, but without, of course, eliding the record of doing so.

    all of the information contained in these two covering rules is

    already covered by the statement that S :> S · S.

 

2.  A grammar rule that invokes a notion of decatenation, deletion, erasure,

    or any other sort of retrograde production, is frequently considered to

    be lacking in elegance, and a there is a style of critique for grammars

    that holds it preferable to avoid these types of operations if it is at

    all possible to do so.  Accordingly, contingent on the prescriptions of

    the informal rule in question, and pursuing the stylistic dictates that

    are writ in the realm of its aesthetic regime, it becomes necessary for

    us to backtrack a little bit, to temporarily withdraw the suggestion of

    employing these elliptical types of operations, but without, of course,

    eliding the record of doing so.

One way to analyze the surcatenation of any number of sentences is to

One way to analyze the surcatenation of any number of sentences is to

introduce an auxiliary type of string, not in general a sentence, but

introduce an auxiliary type of string, not in general a sentence, but