Re: Kendall's review of rq25

Kendall Clark wrote:

> 2. section 12 is completed -- it's not even close as-is (sections 
> 12.2 and 12.3 are simply missing from the doc, even though they're 
> listed in the TOC) -- even more worrisome, there is no connection 
> between 12 and the rest of the doc. Fred Zemke said way back last 
> summer that he didn't see a systematic connection between the grammar 
> and the semantics, and, now, having read this carefully, I completely 
> agree;

I had an editing accident and transferred broken text for sec 12 from the 
working area to rq25 - I only found out at the weekend. CVS helped me dig ou 
the missing text for 12.1 and 12.2 - it was fixed only on Sunday.

My apologies to all reviewers for that.

	Andy