Better example (now from GUM) of asyndetic coordination for #678.

workgroups/newdoc/two_nominals.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ English is an example of a language where it makes sense to use the `compound` r
 
 Several relations are available and they are always directed from the first nominal to the second nominal (in the order of utterance, i.e., they go left-to-right if the language uses a left-to-right writing system).
 
-If the two nominals denote two different entities that together have the same grammatical function in the sentence, they are connected with the [conj]() relation and we have coordination of nominals. Coordination is typically recognizable by a coordinating conjunction ([CCONJ]()) but it is not a requirement. There are examples of asyndetic coordination where the conjuncts are delimited by a comma or pause, as in English _Great deals, great pizza!_
+If the two nominals denote two different entities that together have the same grammatical function in the sentence, they are connected with the [conj]() relation and we have coordination of nominals. Coordination is typically recognizable by a coordinating conjunction ([CCONJ]()) but it is not a requirement. There are examples of asyndetic coordination where the conjuncts are delimited by a comma or pause, as in English _Sunlight lit up the fine <b>hairs</b> on her arm, the embroidered <b>flowers</b> on the collar of her white shirt._
 
 If the two nominals participate in denoting one entity, the default relation to connect them is [flat]() (which may also be used to connect other nodes that are not nominals). Typical examples are personal names: we can say that _John Smith_ is a special type of _John_ as well as a special type of _Smith_, but none of the names governs the other and either of them can be omitted. In many languages this analysis extends to titles and occupations, as in English _president Barack Obama_.