From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCShMzlBBoEAkF9hA@googlegroups.com Mon Oct 11 05:25:06 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5HR8-0004Kv-Mu; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:25:06 -0700 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20sf18325wye.16 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :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=eGR7Xq/8m2nLzU8DtaNfveI/+HeJ8UZgtBH1eZmzvWg=; b=Icukgub1NxhhPLfUmdcpkNjgQOalqk9BmHXle89hpr9kWerdx6X8lzuK51wIQVmw9k eLemhGu19NcrI8at7wyouMHQDgVlWCspealm425HS+BEojNpMTHVluKKhtet8g50KS55 uYyD14/WAw8bkqn3tHawRYcSLfHvoMmHGeinM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf: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; b=7A2TTchb362ePb1eyxVs79SRttg2tzxwf4NQ6m0YYhwJnyDdxf5xUiC8f6iN5Lni/y 2qk80HtTszoluEsH/umD0QbhY/tyLy1azsUeQxbKPIDbwj6aYTk/gMtU+46BgukEtGIV 0DM+8ccY8IV7t89hWl7cuqF4L/QRAsHO5RLFA= Received: by 10.216.231.154 with SMTP id l26mr262630weq.9.1286799890665; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.213.1 with SMTP id z1ls585981weo.1.p; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.140.23 with SMTP id d23mr130424wej.1.1286799889484; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.140.23 with SMTP id d23mr130423wej.1.1286799889463; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com (mail-ww0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x26si1460331weq.0.2010.10.11.05.24.48; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.41; Received: by mail-ww0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 20so131713wwd.2 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.58.82 with SMTP id f18mr2558229wbh.12.1286799888178; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> <4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org> <4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org> <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:24:48 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= 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 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > > You're right. They don't parse as single texts. They also exhibit a practice > I frown on, and if they didn't follow that practice, they would. So, as far > as I'm concerned, your point is moot. OK, so you frown on the standard use of the language as taught in lojbab's lessons and in CLL. That was my moot point. It's just that before, you seemed to be disagreeing that that's what you were doing. Now that we are in agreement about what the official standard is, we can discuss your reform proposal if you want. But it didn't make sense to talk about the proposal if we were not even clear on what the current standard is. So, with your proposal a speaker can't make a grammatical contribution to a conversation unless they correct the ungrammatical parts that went on before, because if they respond with something grammatical by itself to something ungrammatical, the result will in all likelihood be ungrammatical. So a relatively safe approach would be to always start your part of the conversation with "su". That way you don't have to check if everything said so far parses correctly. (Only "relatively safe", because in some cases your "su" could be killed by someone else's dangling "zo", for example, so you still have to be somewhat careful.) Another problem I see is, what if someone barges in on an ongoing conversation? They don't have all the information about what went on before, so how can they make sure that their contribution will result in grammatical Lojban? Since their contribution will be automatically appended to the ongoing conversation, there's no way for them to know what they are adding to. No, I still think the rule "new speaker starts new chunk-to-parse" as default is much more sane. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.