From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRClrcPlBBoEB2kBRw@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 09 13:55:16 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4gRl-0007zS-K3; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:55:16 -0700 Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40sf517434wyb.16 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:55:07 -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=kIoQa0SkTlJYCbkuJ9duyP35xguxJZqSsZ2iT6ICYvU=; b=djsR89aeku6FWZrS34m/yffaq/mDdCu+tlZcSGQg4ENoQaaydgoIHgi4QrIvVPspcx kSrjl+gAhfdeRfrPTRAACvRkOL0Pn9pjFS2ArnxQnmU9HmuEFkabCreKQa97sDEeHwZt FB6YhQAyMy1TrLoGu+/17Hz5PVYSXsxlMsIyg= 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=lxYHHVBRYDx0mmcMXuBiyJuZPIGqiGCO6yjlQRGhlTHiVtGYHpoot6KxtBVSEruOF0 xzvUoqr/gTUiAq4lOzMv/519VmQYU7iZnScMpW+MOSF28ai8mkXWvEH5O8FwaW1gik+e I4PADNXMKOcMDHMx7y0hu0E1L3DEBMYCbinOM= Received: by 10.216.231.71 with SMTP id k49mr43028weq.29.1286657701219; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:55:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.39.10 with SMTP id d10ls730620wbe.2.p; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.152.196 with SMTP id h4mr176714wbw.21.1286657700133; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.152.196 with SMTP id h4mr176713wbw.21.1286657700103; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f54.google.com (mail-ww0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x33si2014354wbs.1.2010.10.09.13.54.59; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.54; Received: by mail-ww0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 17so2660433wwb.35 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:54:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.72.213 with SMTP id n21mr4034162wbj.66.1286657698873; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 13:54:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100903032539.GY5990@digitalkingdom.org> <8136604407292225759@unknownmsgid> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:54:58 -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 74.125.82.54 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 Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:52 PM, John Cowan wrote: > > We already have plenty of cmavo for separation; what we need, then, is > a cmavo for explicit continuation. =A0I expect that would be a UI, > grammatically speaking, or just possibly another member of selma'o I. When And proposed such a cmavo, I suggested selma'o BAhE. Selma'o I wouldn't usually work, because you can't grammatically continue "mi klama lo" with selma'o I, for example. If it's an existing selma'o, then either UI or BAhE are the best choices, I think. Even they will fail if the first speaker ends with ZO or ZEI though, because you wouldn't be able to complete with what you really want to complete. You would need to use some additional trick with SI. Since this is really a meta-instruction to the parser, it has to mean something like "do not attempt to parse what follows on its own, remove this word, attach what follows to whatever you had before, and parse as one". But we can't really add that to the formal grammar, so I say leave it to pragmatics what chunk of input should be treated as the full text to parse, whether it involves a single voice (as usual) or more than one voice (as can happen sometimes). 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.