From bpfk-list+bncCPnKlJnQDBDY18LlBBoEYhBkDw@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 09 10:52:38 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4db1-0006R8-T5; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:38 -0700 Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30sf2196737yxk.16 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:30 -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:mime-version:sender :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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=V9CmN+Ly1SOvZsWngtNVXf9JUdI6++LFp01WHiL0z/A=; b=RnEgokVI7TfLCo+x/0wN92f3P1Sbg2kKUq3Eh0iCoI9WCf+QYzh03iPxQh6ZylPWVf P4AFBUiHY3dYcZeK2QEqLOkZB3VQcEZeSCso6wmeN1SLYXmvRISYDBolJwHlPw+AuSJh 1DqmVeO2WQHKfWVd9iTNj4aK/3qmW1FBfS/zY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=6MDlCG+gZCFchyJism668+GvcN0E5NRvVdLNNGYTQoJDxiVZADScZQ5gv9fgT95eCl zFE2jYfseGfuPkkFDsh60URjZyTJ0Y2pxyriudeeEQh95/PUJCm38Xv2mNegWIC/T7lj bsRTvotYsfYjWrgZNwcb6bPC+tMZQLM0wy3hk= Received: by 10.151.62.31 with SMTP id p31mr253713ybk.20.1286646744153; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.53.9 with SMTP id b9ls733534yba.2.p; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.95.13 with SMTP id o13mr1052808yhf.0.1286646743793; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.95.13 with SMTP id o13mr1052806yhf.0.1286646743666; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id u69si1920599yhc.12.2010.10.09.10.52.22; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of johnwcowan@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.182; Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42so540692yxe.41 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.206.12 with SMTP id d12mr386059ang.37.1286646742229; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.43.10 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8136604407292225759@unknownmsgid> References: <20100903032539.GY5990@digitalkingdom.org> <8136604407292225759@unknownmsgid> From: John Cowan Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 13:52:02 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: johnwcowan@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of johnwcowan@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=johnwcowan@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Daniel Brockman wrote: > Jorge suggested a workable solution several messages ago: use a cmavo > to explicitly distinguish between the two candidate interpretations > when necessary. This is the only practical way to avoid ambiguity. It > also adds flexibility to the language in a very lojbanic way: suddenly > it supports both isolating yourself from previous speakers and > continuing other utterances (something which, by the way, is very rare > in practice). > > Most importantly, this leaves the unmarked forms context-dependent, > which means nobody needs to fight over what these extremely common > expressions "actually" mean: it's simply up to context. You only have > to use the explicit marker in unusual cases, or when extreme > unambiguity is needed. I agree entirely. We already have plenty of cmavo for separation; what we need, then, is a cmavo for explicit continuation. I expect that would be a UI, grammatically speaking, or just possibly another member of selma'o I. -- 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.