From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCGjdTlBBoEN0pDKg@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 12 18:08:39 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5ppc-0002bH-3u; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:39 -0700 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20sf527875wye.16 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:29 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CabjH5uO7cRMhyoS+V1mDYu6P4Ikr71iqaok7KyTOeM=; b=0DtJYwTfeVWQ9uOSG8ksj1TViZbFC5wOZGvq8YDPplm6vNHMvm9UbM75+uUsrv1+/0 Qa3lIuN/DtmDfyEN/foDA11WvGcYB19nPBZM3lrnvi6Lovz5w+SWNvPCdPaYOTw2ALhh GXPYLaIujGSKO2fptl5vMuMd3jlT9HmJwvaMs= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=NujTDRfZpPXH9Oxlj0dytRNT5Y7C4U/cLmr1XHsu4A9frT0WpDmYSZDZJ2jCO0rsab 2f3tD6aNfaRn2vFrBulBjMHMfNwKQj4cAO0AxYk1eHKxDTj9fSRKUhSV5TGiBLqC+FsN t6yjT5qKCn7IvuwR0i8I9MhVTioc8Y7aWar/k= Received: by 10.216.237.35 with SMTP id x35mr123016weq.5.1286932102979; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.238.19 with SMTP id z19ls218294weq.2.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.36.137 with SMTP id w9mr32672wea.0.1286932102130; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.36.137 with SMTP id w9mr32671wea.0.1286932102108; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com (mail-wy0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m20si918181weq.3.2010.10.12.18.08.21; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.180; Received: by mail-wy0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 39so2917414wyb.39 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.172.73 with SMTP id k9mr7720788wbz.111.1286932100706; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:08:20 -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 22:08:20 -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 74.125.82.180 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Daniel Brockman wrote= : > I think I see what you mean. > > You are saying that a "conversation" is not the only kind > of "meta-textual" Lojban objects that exist or can exist. > > Another simple example could be a Lojban "book". > > Or how about a Lojban "twitter feed" or "mailing list"? > > A "stream of consciousness"? > > A "to-do list"? > > A "contract"? > > I agree. =A0None of these are exactly "conversations", yet > they are certainly "Lojban objects". =A0I feel like I could easily > produce any number of examples. > > Essentially, Jorge is asking us to stop trying to formalize > something that we do not understand and have not really > thought through, or even really thought about at all. > > Right? To tell you the truth, I'm a bit lost at this point as to what anyone is arguing for. I am not opposed to new cmavo in general. If people find something like "di'ai" useful, and it can be somehow incorporated into the grammar, great. I still don't see how it would work, but I'm not opposed to people trying to formalize it. What I don't like much is it being proposed as some vague idea which will end up being a headache worse than SA when trying to actually make it work in the formal grammar. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.