From bpfk-list+bncCMvjp-TQBRC51M_lBBoEIQCHzg@googlegroups.com Mon Oct 11 21:55:37 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5Wti-00005V-Gn; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:55:37 -0700 Received: by ywo7 with SMTP id 7sf1706369ywo.16 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:55:28 -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:received-spf:received:received:references:from :in-reply-to:mime-version:date:message-id:subject: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dluHxuU4xKwtkHnQ82JnTCvsJnRwwXepYEsn26m3Nco=; b=VJkyCNieoeCGuOV9qu/eHSu7W6QjEOukj2j00Mg5fUr+ksDmW3THic2Ld7uY9i7wYJ y907m3G5q0YCrOaxVpKU2P8dElQMAIaPiigeMOiILtm9ACDGb4RrFiRoaIhraFGN68MY oRaESMt/CviepZeEtTKo6atCyE+8B1mFp1dEA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:references:from:in-reply-to:mime-version :date:message-id:subject: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:content-transfer-encoding; b=oGlJhVRwiZSon6JfMqMRHFvIUGY72H4iFBQZSDULBF4IrBW32ladZ7jXqqY4fLMgMm JxiwfBQXCGV0vinYJ5tHvC3+s2ahQUtdM/N36da4/raE11rNa9gwNbkZQUGmON3Xtsy7 iHSz5YJbrMVjadRxDE0eXBt0JTdUNKSoEPgXQ= Received: by 10.151.62.39 with SMTP id p39mr590117ybk.49.1286859321624; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:55:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.54.20 with SMTP id c20ls1571068yba.5.p; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.203.5 with SMTP id a5mr1616964ybg.14.1286859321335; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.203.132 with SMTP id fi4mr1064847qab.20.1286817900288; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.203.132 with SMTP id fi4mr1064846qab.20.1286817900269; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f50.google.com (mail-qw0-f50.google.com [209.85.216.50]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m13si905174qcu.15.2010.10.11.10.24.59; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.50; Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so179943qwi.37 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.202.10 with SMTP id fc10mr4723736qab.66.1286817899077; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:24:59 -0700 (PDT) References: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> <4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org> <4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org> <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> From: Daniel Brockman In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A293) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:24:45 +0200 Message-ID: <475667056668058691@unknownmsgid> Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work To: "bpfk-list@googlegroups.com" X-Original-Sender: dbrockman@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dbrockman@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry if the formatting in this message doesn't come out perfect. On 11 okt 2010, at 15:03, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Daniel Brockman wro= te: >> I consider myself a pretty pedantic {i}-user, but even I >> only start with {i} if the first thing I'm saying is a bridi. > > I'm still trying to figure out where the idea that starting your part of = the conversation without an ".i" is somehow less than perfect Lojban. [...]= Where does this notion that conversations are single parsable units rather= than exchange of > parsable units come from? I simply think of {i} as starting a sentence instead of separating sentences. I don't think I got this idea from anywhere in particular; for some reason I just prefer to think of it that way. I guess to me it fits with the rest of the language, or something? The primary reason is probably that we stick modifiers on the {i} to modify the following sentence. Hence my mind casts {i} as the sentence-opener. Sometimes I will leave out the initial {i} and in those cases I don't think of the first part of my utterance as a sentence: it's sort of just some interjections before I begin my proper sentences. Again, I'm just describing how I personally think of it. I absolutely agree that a text need not start with {i}. > >> I don't start with {i} if the first thing I'm saying is, e.g., a UI. >> When I start with a UI, it sort of attaches to my whole text. >> It definitely does not attach to the end of some other text. > > An initial UI doesn't syntactically attach to anything, because > there's nothing to its left for it to attach to. What its "object" is > (when it requires one) depends on the context. In some cases its > object is what has been said before. I don't think the object is very > often the whole following text when it gets separated by an ".i". I agree. > >> I still think the explicit marker cmavo would be useful. > > Could be, so that would become: > > A: mi klama lo ... > B: di'ai zarci > > That in fact would reinforce the idea that unless it is marked > otherwise, B's text is their own, not (partly) someone else's. And in > that case the text to feed to the parser is "mi klama lo zarci", with > "di'ai" removed. This is the "twins completing each other's sentences" > kind of situation. But it shouldn't be the default. Agreed. >> I'm not sure how to express explicit non-continuation, though. >> Maybe the explicit marker has a *required* NAI following it? > > Or it could be a different word, say "ni'oi". But it would really be > redundant in most cases. Agreed. We could just call it {ni'o ze'ei di'ai} or something. It'll be so rare that six syllables is fine. --=20 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@googleg= roups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.