Received: from mail-oa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.219.61]:42603) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Wt180-0007tm-T7; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:52 -0700 Received: by mail-oa0-f61.google.com with SMTP id l6sf684206oag.26 for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=37zOhGJa9ve5isAMckcjPHLTw6fAXPr7kCtqsUzLKDY=; b=FpWEzlopr1oyV1WhJMh6516QUTrfNbw+W0u6Hd4wpavUHiN4LqCHsKESK05g8EPX4R tXLXprEcojTD3yINiqjyS2hLFQC2WJqkUEpJYMS7YpVnJD6RiHFX3wY1qADZT2tg01CZ 3c5IaReJODAMPVUdHU2BUkvyBz7YWavoJAqtE2Y3RpUx2xTwrW9iyr1mnJkmyf94oh8F ZsQ/K3n06EKNmPVuGBfgmRl62vzA/IehmTd1hNIfWK448C6k6OGE+oywGtgSyXnvFQSd jPvEXLTrhFKBjWsftRccfT/wlaG2qkDj18wtsqMyBqgJ31BEExEHHa6D7aPirgxNzk/P yJaw== X-Received: by 10.182.56.13 with SMTP id w13mr35902obp.22.1402087958567; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.116.194 with SMTP id jy2ls485970obb.75.gmail; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.246.7 with SMTP id xs7mr3874748obc.15.1402087958276; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x22d.google.com (mail-ve0-x22d.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pr8si725801vdb.1.2014.06.06.13.52.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d; Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id pa12so3963059veb.32 for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.20.199 with SMTP id qp7mr8698531vcb.24.1402087958113; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.170.73 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:52:38 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BAhE + BU From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339e2eaff3e404fb310a79 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11339e2eaff3e404fb310a79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > > The BPFK pages for "nonce connectives > " and "lerfu > forming cmavo > " seem to > indicate that {ba'e bu} should not form a letteral. > > However, "nonce connectives" also includes this example: > > ko pensi me'o depsna bu .e me'o ba'e bu > *Think about "hesitation sound", and the emphasis letter.* > > The parsers are also at odds: YACC and jbofihe reject {ba'e bu}, and > camxes accepts it. > There were a lot of comings and goings with this, and nothing is officially decided yet. Personally, I think the example and camxes are correct and the definitions have to be adapted. My reasoning is that BAhE is not a "magic word" (by which I mean words that grab other words without much caring to what selma'o they belong), and magic words have priority over ordinary grammar rules. zo, bu, zei, lo'u, zoi, si don't care much or at all about the word class of the word they operate on, they just ignore its class and eliminate its usual function. BAhE on the other hand is like UI, it can attach to practically any word, but it leaves that word's function alone. That's why the grammars are so different, magic words just have their own spefific rule, whereas BAhE and UI have to show up in the core rules of practically all other words. The issue is relatively minro though, since I think it only affects "BAhE bu", "BAhE zei ...." and "BAhE si". I assume that whatever is true for {ba'e bu} is also true for {za'e bu}, > but I'm confused by the seemingly contradictory statements that {za'e} is > "grammatically identical to za'e" and yet "for grammatical purposes, {za'e} > binds with and marks the following word". It would seem that whatever it > means to "bind" the following word, it's not a grammatically significant > operation, since {ba'e} and {za'e} differ in that aspect. > The wording should be unified. BAhE doesn't change the function of the word it attaches to, much like UI. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --001a11339e2eaff3e404fb310a79 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch <= shunpiker@gmail.co= m> wrote:

The BPF= K pages for "nonce connectives" and "lerfu forming cmavo" seem to indicate that {ba'= e bu} should not form a letteral.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
However, "nonce connectives" also includes this exa= mple:

ko pensi me'o depsna bu .e me'= ;o ba'e bu
Think about "hesitatio= n sound", and the emphasis letter.
=C2=A0The parsers are also at odds: YACC and = jbofihe reject {ba'e bu}, and camxes accepts it.

There were a lot of comings and goings wit= h this, and nothing is officially decided yet. Personally, I think the exam= ple and camxes are correct and the definitions have to be adapted.

My reasoning is that BAhE is not a "magic word&quo= t; (by which I mean words that grab other words without much caring to what= selma'o they belong), and magic words have priority over ordinary gram= mar rules. zo, bu, zei, lo'u, zoi, si don't care much or at all abo= ut the word class of the word they operate on, they just ignore its class a= nd eliminate its usual function. BAhE on the other hand is like UI, it can = attach to practically any word, but it leaves that word's function alon= e. That's why the grammars are so different, magic words just have thei= r own spefific rule, whereas BAhE and UI have to show up in the core rules = of practically all other words.

The issue is relatively minro though, since I think it = only affects "BAhE bu", "BAhE zei ...." and "BAhE = si".

I assume that whatever = is true for {ba'e bu} is also true for {za'e bu}, but I'm confu= sed by the seemingly contradictory statements that {za'e} is "gram= matically identical to za'e" and yet "for grammatical purpose= s, {za'e} binds with and marks the following word". It would seem = that whatever it means to "bind" the following word, it's not= a grammatically significant operation, since {ba'e} and {za'e} dif= fer in that aspect.
The wording should be unified. BAhE does= n't change the function of the word it attaches to, much like UI. =C2= =A0=C2=A0

mu'o mi'e xorxes

<= /div>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a11339e2eaff3e404fb310a79--