From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhDh4NjlBBoEZf_t2w@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 13 15:19:33 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P69fX-0003wq-4G; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:33 -0700 Received: by yxe1 with SMTP id 1sf639624yxe.16 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:25 -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=JXP2zsLdWs8p2QxaMKYKrZXh6rrO+cJzOCMdzpTCo4o=; b=LF3WLuSID9iYvStnZBtmdhgk2buZ59gESEoe38gWEhOGapRrvVCB05NMjbgaFFwxkF XbaQiQsN811t2LGmcH0zj+uFDuXVi6ldCcuAbL5bUNp4eW6ZAiRs1UMWVkE0oM0gzEf/ J5gG/yHVUArOb1sNMtlL3wKoH0oH0BarV9GkI= 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=dnh1vwJaWv6gvQB3boFjoE+JJNNcN1e0eRM8BomRUYf8CJNLeRhqCmg/fI3KqbzNk5 NNgtzz9T1CxpFihqabVgCcwuZFv2VSlvVPbSneSi38tPwj2yeFw77+wUyaIL9HN42CEr 8lZKGh332OMA+13Z45mcC1/po4FwMcEFgt7C4= Received: by 10.90.67.20 with SMTP id p20mr57414aga.51.1287008353347; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.112.41 with SMTP id u41ls1030900ibp.1.p; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.161.69 with SMTP id q5mr2813670ibx.8.1287008352690; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.161.69 with SMTP id q5mr2813668ibx.8.1287008352660; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j25si1896032ibb.0.2010.10.13.15.19.11; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.182; Received: by iwn8 with SMTP id 8so10183773iwn.41 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.73.136 with SMTP id s8mr3664730icj.449.1287008351282; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3443a11a-dc47-4efe-8501-4bdd78333ccf@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:19:11 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: {.i} and {ni'o}, continuation or new jufra From: Jonathan Jones To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e867e99e5a9049286fb8c --90e6ba6e867e99e5a9049286fb8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Brockman wrote: > Yes, obviously the text reopening semantics can not be > formalized in a grammar. > > Maybe forget about {fa'ei} until we figure {fa'ai} out. Maybe we should just forget about all of it since this is about continuing sentences, not texts. la.alis. is a text. It is not /a/ jufra. -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --90e6ba6e867e99e5a9049286fb8c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Daniel= Brockman <danie= l@brockman.se> wrote:
Yes, obviously the text reopening semantics can not be
formalized in a grammar.

Maybe forget about {fa'ei} until we figure {fa'ai} out.

Maybe we should just forget about all of it since this is about = continuing sentences, not texts. la.alis. is a text. It is not /a/ jufra.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le= bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to= the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
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.
--90e6ba6e867e99e5a9049286fb8c--