From bpfk-list+bncCKXkyaieBhDNpNflBBoEksL1HA@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 13 08:38:05 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P63Oz-0004rp-Ug; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:38:05 -0700 Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33sf1560871qyk.16 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:56 -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:received:received:received:received :mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:from: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; bh=aniin3PTaUWbT6UIzpLC3cj+kBsq+pLdqwhnmNKYeSA=; b=MENBY4A96F6WElYq2GLuL7AxFv8SnGVMc+0gdcWsohUmVOMLBOmqqa2aaDcVF9H+b/ yQ7GP2FcCmdmCeFgA6/wC7EwjnpCGW/7WmJj76B0H0zZSf2stWhVUdQOtanR4u1FpRV7 XkIYI/r+Q/ow9Ar2Jy4rL2ECGjbRUYFFMJJrQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :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; b=3eaVURWCIE6V6uQfRYN1gzvDp+2wOGvSA4F0vOzy3TPXrHaPhHFVqdIwooWfRdyB5W 9YoxM7p3HXKXM17KfYvUE3Ulbu4IipguoRv5hTknfDbn5cB98Fzwy1oAl0dwH/8YE5iI 1iiAocwVfcOgYnoBfQ6r7pd6CJfARNlRHbfjQ= Received: by 10.229.127.151 with SMTP id g23mr314400qcs.21.1286984269472; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.207.84 with SMTP id fx20ls430924qcb.0.p; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.235.195 with SMTP id kh3mr1312372qcb.3.1286984269066; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.235.195 with SMTP id kh3mr1312371qcb.3.1286984269008; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f178.google.com (mail-qy0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id mz6si4897591qcb.13.2010.10.13.08.37.48; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.216.178 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of daniel@brockman.se) client-ip=209.85.216.178; Received: by mail-qy0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 35so1041239qyk.2 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.212.201 with SMTP id gt9mr7026754qab.20.1286984268254; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com (mail-qy0-f174.google.com [209.85.216.174]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nb14sm7549254qcb.0.2010.10.13.08.37.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk5 with SMTP id 5so604326qyk.19 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.80.7 with SMTP id r7mr3468550qck.99.1286984266208; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.145 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:37:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3443a11a-dc47-4efe-8501-4bdd78333ccf@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com> From: Daniel Brockman Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:37:06 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: {.i} and {ni'o}, continuation or new jufra To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: daniel@brockman.se X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.85.216.178 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of daniel@brockman.se) smtp.mail=daniel@brockman.se 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 First, let me make it clear that I don't think this is an important feature. I'm participating in the discussion because a well-designed unnecessary feature is better than an ill-designed unnecessary feature. Here's how I see it: {fa'ai}: Explicitly opens a new text. {fa'ei}: Explicitly opens an existing text for appending. {fa'o}: Explicitly closes the current text. Both {fa'ai} and {fa'ei} implicitly cause any current text to be closed as if they had been preceded by {fa'o}. Lojban utterances that start with neither {fa'ai} nor {fa'ei} are ambiguous as to whether they start a new text or append to an existing one. (This is a non-problem.) But to me, {fa'ei} is incomplete if it does not provide a way to indicate which existing text will be appended to. The parameter to {fa'ei} should be a sumti whose referent points the reader (whether human or machine) to the text being appended to. I expect that the sumti would usually refer to the previous speaker. The parameter is either optional or you have to use {zo'e} if you want to be vague. The word stream following {fa'ei} is not a text in itself and thus cannot be parsed on its own. You have to find the existing text first, append to that, and then reparse. I don't know what happens to pronouns like {mi} and {do} when one speaker appends to another speaker's text. I think {mi} should always refer to the current speaker, but {do} is a little more problematic. A: {mi klama lo zarci} + B: {fa'ei a bu fu lo mi karce} = {a bu klama lo zarci fu lo by karce} A: {doi by mi klama lo zarci} + B: {fa'ei a bu fu lo do karce} = ? Also, in what semantic context should the {fa'ei} parameter be evaluated? I guess in a "new" context, whatever that means. Again, I actually don't think any of this is important. Maybe I'm just discussing for the sake of discussion. -- 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.