From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhDIq9nlBBoEN5h7jA@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 13 17:59:03 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P6C9r-00046P-UV; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:59:03 -0700 Received: by gxk6 with SMTP id 6sf3163720gxk.16 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:54 -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=Ms584uAyRSWIZMpUC3MDgWHiVkJ9LDBQZthDdxgiwEs=; b=6iKtOSUPEVhgZiu9UWHB9oCze+OKVmsKLjkwlKqZr47j1XV7gC5QjyKyh4P1Oc+Bsj byfoaZonIRvSln7TBs8hdjxVw6e27nSFhJEOax9sZf/O2uAOvJAtF493KMOnNAFJal8O 1QteVcLlvhNHQl8vH6HyGwHKP6ObcMU+3tlq8= 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=am1irPaimJYtgbhteMVAXmLhAg35B/9M58Yg2aOEhw9Qtzy6x7YTlXuY1gGCrMv/fe dslFQWNNh0AOyhMwyKIqcQqS3eIFO9wUDKXdA9xoUev+6y/MQb0v8K8zdiGeVPjcDqEO 7CTHHNJU4h9Ri1fTZjLTONt5FFWL+RULi8+o4= Received: by 10.90.103.12 with SMTP id a12mr208167agc.59.1287017928204; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls1090419ibr.2.p; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.183.71 with SMTP id cf7mr3109556ibb.17.1287017927757; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.183.71 with SMTP id cf7mr3109555ibb.17.1287017927722; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com (mail-iw0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j25si1982112ibb.0.2010.10.13.17.58.46; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.174; Received: by mail-iw0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 41so102759iwn.19 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.173.3 with SMTP id n3mr7799433ibz.56.1287017926592; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3443a11a-dc47-4efe-8501-4bdd78333ccf@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:58:46 -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 209.85.214.174 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=001636284d1c5589400492893640 --001636284d1c5589400492893640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Ross Ogilvie wrote: > However, if we can find a solution that works for all humans, then we have > a solution that works for all men. > > Hence, figuring out how this works for texts means we have figured out how > it works for sentences. > > mi'e ros > My point is, .xorxes. is over-generalizing. The concept that is 'text' is extremely variable. Many thing are 'text's. Twitter posts, Stela's radio show, the Berenstein Bears books, this thread, a conversation. On the other hand, a jufra (sentence) is /not/ variable. A jufra is always the content between to (unquoted) [selma'o I]. While a jufra in itself is highly variable in both content and length, what constitutes a single jufra is a constant. This entire discussion began from my observation that I interpret: A: mi nelci lo blanu gerku B: .ienai .i ta ba'e na blanu To mean that B is disagreeing that it is a dog {gerku.ienai}, because to me, if a speaker does not begin with [selma'o I], that means the speaker is continuing the previous speaker's jufra. .xorxes. decided to (unintentionally, I'm sure) muddy the waters by bringing up the whole concept of 'text's. Unambiguously determining whether one text is a continuation of a previous text or a new one is both (likely) NP-hard and (IMO) completely unimportant, due to the highly variable nature of the concept of 'text' itself. OTOH, unambiguously determining whether an utterance is a continuation of a previous jufra or a new one is, in nearly every instance, as easy as not omitting {.i}. Except in such cases, as .xorxes. has pointed out, where the {.i} would be quoted by the previous utterance if it were assumed to be continuing, necessitating the use of a "explicit 'continue' tag". In short, what should be an /extremely/ simple thing, about an /extremely/ simple problem, has been blown way out of proportion and taking up too much valuable time from many people that would have been much better spent doing BPFK work. (And by the way, the reason I said that this discussion need to be moved from the 'BPFK work' thread due to it having nothing to do with BPFK work is because what I consider BPFK work at this time consists exclusively of the following: Completing each of the sections listed on the BPFK sections page on the tiki Voting on the various sections until each has been approved and the baseline is - finally- fully documented. Since this discussion obviously falls into NEITHER category, it isn't BPFK work. -- 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. --001636284d1c5589400492893640 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Ross Ogilvie <oges007@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
However, if we can find a solution that works for all humans, then we = have a solution that works for all men.
=A0
Hence, figuring out how this works for texts means we have figured out= how it works for sentences.
=A0
mi'e ros

My point is, .x= orxes. is over-generalizing. The concept that is 'text' is extremel= y variable. Many thing are 'text's. Twitter posts, Stela's radi= o show, the Berenstein Bears books, this thread, a conversation.

On the other hand, a jufra (sentence) is /not/ variable. A jufra is alw= ays the content between to (unquoted) [selma'o I]. While a jufra in its= elf is highly variable in both content and length, what constitutes a singl= e jufra is a constant. This entire discussion began from my observation tha= t I interpret:

A: mi nelci lo blanu gerku
B: .ienai .i ta ba'e na blanu

= To mean that B is disagreeing that it is a dog {gerku.ienai}, because to me= , if a speaker does not begin with [selma'o I], that means the speaker = is continuing the previous speaker's jufra.

.xorxes. decided to (unintentionally, I'm sure) muddy the waters by= bringing up the whole concept of 'text's.

Unambiguously det= ermining whether one text is a continuation of a previous text or a new one= is both (likely) NP-hard and (IMO) completely unimportant, due to the high= ly variable nature of the concept of 'text' itself.

OTOH, unambiguously determining whether an utterance is a continuation = of a previous jufra or a new one is, in nearly every instance, as easy as n= ot omitting {.i}.

Except in such cases, as .xorxes. has pointed out,= where the {.i} would be quoted by the previous utterance if it were assume= d to be continuing, necessitating the use of a "explicit 'continue= ' tag".

In short, what should be an /extremely/ simple thing, about an /extreme= ly/ simple problem, has been blown way out of proportion and taking up too = much valuable time from many people that would have been much better spent = doing BPFK work. (And by the way, the reason I said that this discussion ne= ed to be moved from the 'BPFK work' thread due to it having nothing= to do with BPFK work is because what I consider BPFK work at this time con= sists exclusively of the following:

Completing each of the sections listed on the BPFK sections page on the= tiki
Voting on the various sections until each has been approved and th= e baseline is - finally- fully documented.

Since this discussion obv= iously falls into NEITHER category, it isn't BPFK work.

--
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.
--001636284d1c5589400492893640--