Received: from mail-ig0-f183.google.com ([209.85.213.183]:58328) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XwhLZ-0005vm-CC; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:06:14 -0800 Received: by mail-ig0-f183.google.com with SMTP id r2sf2614844igi.20 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:06:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=sCSQ983C3q3kP8Ls+5qY0jnc+9Qgbhu70Bx4KTTF+OE=; b=XGTbofQ7OkHSmDR7Z/B36wdZDvx36fTyn7Ftc/5O6Zzs0oO7lhas4K06zRITLAwlno WyP0Sdmi0BJmKVZfcAd5ABWAkwCLbviplRoc/sPllusOsvSF/1sCaHLamj8/00JZKF9q iJ7G8VZRX1Tinc3xyYDc0jHXD65SIO67SnL1TUGZxMlaAiyrJ5k4jTH4aiay9h63Zshm KB6eoyN4yIyugtgJ28i3CbkutKTcLez7tcZl59oW7yXwPkzFnq26swmQnEs8yUPulyNJ R5Yatn1Fez8/9BjZTN/kVrbVz9QgwAhJ8Go/Hn4jiqu0HEYwB7AAz2TGmGYrH2aXskMC kLsw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=sCSQ983C3q3kP8Ls+5qY0jnc+9Qgbhu70Bx4KTTF+OE=; b=inis1zw2Y0R67MCyeuSa6wGy6Di2XWtwah7tx0/Dcxh/OemQSCTlP7W18SkMWJd0Fa g6mV8H1lXzvDlEG+LbpPA4eIB+/RKuuYmGGzproZ1hQyQK1Mh6LiJbPaN9f8c4Cc/1ee wDHu11urgPDJOF/twUM9259rgCfjZKGWWJu6EeMdGhwzrRhx2OSzHAXRH8N7hC6NOEr6 BniirK8XpJrFQFUf0Lx0Mn39HVGJS1sG9tmL5YBQWkew0aQmidSs24kDI9XlQmclv/7Z /pLFw3/0eRkz3/COx0mbpy/mAOQlW0XUUgHo9lC/DjQ1OxhEQ6MpfivsTXHkxV6kmUaa RjVQ== X-Received: by 10.50.30.98 with SMTP id r2mr3032igh.10.1417741567098; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:06:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.154.196 with SMTP id c187ls1112251ioe.109.gmail; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:06:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.66.144 with SMTP id f16mr2535igt.17.1417741566880; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:06:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:06:05 -0800 (PST) From: guskant To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <8a9f73e5-a962-412f-9a74-d3d9ad4dc513@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <5480E43F.1030405@gmail.com> References: <75193C89A357400681AD84241A9439A7@gmail.com> <5480E43F.1030405@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK Section: Subordinators MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_984_978481372.1417741565905" X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@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: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_984_978481372.1417741565905 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_985_2054134125.1417741565905" ------=_Part_985_2054134125.1417741565905 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le vendredi 5 d=C3=A9cembre 2014 07:46:43 UTC+9, Ilmen a =C3=A9crit : > > =20 > On 04/12/2014 19:07, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > =20 > According to another xorxe's definition {po} is expanded into=20 > po =3D [GOI] poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana > > In the BPFK Section "Subordinators"=20 > , {pe X} is=20 > defined as {poi ke'a srana X}. > If {po X} is defined as "poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana X", then I=20 > don't see much the difference with {pe} as defined in the BPFK section. > > However I think {pe X} would be better defined as {poi ke'a X co'e}, to= =20 > have a better parallel with co'e / zo'e / xo'e / do'e / tu'a / zo'ei. > > I agree. I asked once a related question: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/wvLz7Ew6bzI/discussion {poi ke'a X co'e} is better as a definition of {pe X} in order to let {pe= =20 SUMSMI} have a reasonable meaning. However, we should make explicit that both this definition and the current= =20 BPFK's definition {poi ke'a srana X} contradict the CLL description in=20 Chapter 9, Section 10: "Example 10.5 and Example 10.6 have the full semantic content of Example=20 10.1 and Example 10.2 respectively." as I wrote in my second post in the=20 thread above, for example: {pe cu'u ry} =3D {poi ke'a co'e cu'u ry}=20 it is similar to {poi ry cusku fi'o co'e ke'a}, but not equal to {poi ry=20 cusku ke'a}. =20 > I used to assume that {po X} was synonymous with {poi X ke'a ponse}, mayb= e=20 > wrongly. > > I rather prefer your assumption to {poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana},=20 though, in any case, I will obey the final decision of BPFK. mu'o mi'e la .ilmen. > > >=20 --=20 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 e= mail 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. ------=_Part_985_2054134125.1417741565905 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le vendredi 5 d=C3=A9cembre 2014 07:46:43 UTC+9, I= lmen a =C3=A9crit :
=20 =20 =20

On 04/12/2014 19:07, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
According to another xorxe's definition {po} is expanded into 
po =3D [GOI] poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana

In the BPFK Section "Subordinators", {pe X} is defined as {poi ke'a srana X}.
If {po X} is defined as "poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana X", then I don't see much the difference with {pe} as defined in the BPFK section.

However I think {pe X} would be better defined as {poi ke'a X co'e}, to have a better parallel with co'e / zo'e / xo'e / do'e / tu'a / zo'ei.


I agree. I asked once a rela= ted question:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/wvLz7Ew6bz= I/discussion

{poi ke'a X co'e} is better as a = definition of {pe X} in order to let {pe SUMSMI} have a reasonable meaning.=

However, we should make explicit that both this d= efinition and the current BPFK's definition {poi ke'a srana X} contradict t= he CLL description in Chapter 9, Section 10:
"Example 10.5 and Ex= ample 10.6 have the full semantic content of Example 10.1 and Example 10.2 = respectively." as I wrote in my second post in the thread above, for exampl= e:
{pe cu'u ry} =3D {poi ke'a co'e cu'u ry} 
= it is similar to {poi ry cusku fi'o co'e ke'a}, but not equal to {poi ry cu= sku ke'a}.

 
I used to assume that {po X} was synonymous with {poi X ke'a ponse}, maybe wrongly.


I rather prefer your assumpt= ion to {poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana}, though, in any case, I will ob= ey the final decision of BPFK.

mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.


--
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.
------=_Part_985_2054134125.1417741565905-- ------=_Part_984_978481372.1417741565905--