From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDJhNTlBBoEUhJuFQ@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 12 17:50:33 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5pY6-0001cp-NW; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:33 -0700 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf1277350wwe.16 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:24 -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=BS6Enx40+Ao0ld2a+A89P8sbbx8Q+YTKPGEsqbNL1/0=; b=UUSJA1bd6RkzBKPUPuI/jt8gPkoM2PFEUAtcd8hPb8H14Z+EiaSgJ79pDAX/hsNNc8 u3L5NGZVf9lxBN7iANigyp3MbH72XiRTotWYnaqi5rZubP36GCY++3wb8hq7ej6e1l79 FRvtk/a6WRVlr6IeeBSwqUY1xrk4kfCXYF9oc= 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=fpjhDgbdliqt77rmQ6jqOneyi272YEdG1c64kBJHPo3zZBdrLI4Ak9qa64OzTU42D5 YqVxug9lRgiscKT95k1BXIZhQMLDOsV3gxDrd+gOTKCWGIDuN524ehgijXXkx+gnGSYS UtKGxULyDxtqN3XWUD+okcB7eVQjGUdVMUAXE= Received: by 10.216.237.73 with SMTP id x51mr659256weq.19.1286931017654; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.238.19 with SMTP id z19ls214631weq.2.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.161.66 with SMTP id v44mr427595wek.7.1286931016996; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.161.66 with SMTP id v44mr427594wek.7.1286931016969; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (mail-ww0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id q27si913704wbv.1.2010.10.12.17.50.15; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43; Received: by mail-ww0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 15so5504632wwe.0 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.127.65 with SMTP id f1mr7813295wbs.118.1286931015770; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> <4CB3576C.2000009@lojban.org> <4CB48045.9050503@lojban.org> <4CB4A74F.9040003@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:50:15 -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 74.125.82.43 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 Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > > I have an easy fix for that specific example. I believe I've mentioned it > before. > > Preface your speech with {.i}. But that's my point, if you make ".i" obligatory before every utterance, you are changing the language. (And the formal grammar will still not be able to identify where one speaker ends and another begins, so it still cannot generate a conversation from the input.) If all you are saying is that using ".i" makes for a certain kind of exchanges to be mushable into one long text and the result is most often still grammatical and (somewhat) similar to what was intended by the speakers, then sure, that's true. But that has nothing to do with the formal grammar, it's just one style that you prefer, because you happen to like conversations that can be mushed into a single text. The style I proposed, starting every utterance with "ni'o mi'e " is even more precise if you want that kind of precision. > Then it becomes > > A: .i do klama ma > B: .i lo zarci > > Amazingly, this rule tells you how to separate the single input ".i do klama > ma .i lo zarci" into the two strings produced by A and B, No, there is no way for the formal grammar to tell it came from two different speakers, unless you also make it a rule that a speaker can only produce one bridi at a time. > isn't based on any > heuristics or voice recognition, and is already part of the formal grammar! > Huzzah! > > Which is yet another reason why I frown on the practice of /not/ beginning > one's speech with one of {.i}, {ni'o}, or {no'i}, and .lojbab. apparently is > in agreement with me. But why don't you also frown on the practice of not beginning with ".i mi'e ". You are not consistent in your frowning. 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.