From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRD8tcPlBBoE7OWQCA@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 09 14:13:48 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4gjh-0000Zh-Fg; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:48 -0700 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf520836wwe.16 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:38 -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=XVOzIO5r8jIuMFStJLh3vcskuGDNPP2rTPeoEXtE+Vg=; b=56+/X6gdmW76dN0ZRMXQWecbwOtf6JHV2UAsiwD7jkLZ/7/HBUZOpBwuk3ZB4bOJfN V0/zbNFO6xP0y8pHLvdEFIIj2yjrgxbtexgI1OFW0axuX9AevsxyAgGYlad9Lb/SOT0+ qkzdEJGK8ZbHwAcM+AmoxNdEeLyb5Mcq7pLw0= 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=FfDiAtKLUqv83tnRfembVDBT81ttOJqWEtN2YQMR0KahS8rl0uDYQToRxKRcgbCyHC KUQdNiCdkrl+nOm9VWPvng71FCT87w0bu2ubr6LfHADEM+5aW+iesoEWJtbdxHgPztop nmJ2+6RHOJ4Z3Pr3UFoltsDByaFUl8l+uBK2g= Received: by 10.216.237.9 with SMTP id x9mr475610weq.26.1286658812655; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.237.134 with SMTP id y6ls912592weq.2.p; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.161.9 with SMTP id v9mr212670wek.5.1286658811594; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.161.9 with SMTP id v9mr212669wek.5.1286658811577; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f48.google.com (mail-ww0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id o31si487007wej.2.2010.10.09.14.13.30; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.48; Received: by wwi14 with SMTP id 14so5198wwi.29 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.137.15 with SMTP id u15mr4074807wbt.129.1286658810418; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:13:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> References: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 18:13:30 -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 74.125.82.48 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 3:19 PM, Robert LeChevalier wrot= e: > > I'm not sure that I am understanding what the issue is in this discussion= . > =A0"Text" is mostly meaningful in Lojban grammar as a term referring to > parsible chunks of Lojban. =A0Your conversation between A and B is a vali= d > single "text", simply because it can parse. Yes, of course, two different texts can fortuitously form a third text when stuck one after the other (in fact they often do), but that's just a lucky coincidence. The resulting third text does not necessarily have any related meaning with the two original texts. If A says something grammatical, and then B says something grammatical in response, it may happen that if you join the two texts together you end up with a grammatical text, but that new text may have a meaning totally unrelated to A and B's conversation. For example: A: do klama ma B: lo zarci The text "do klama ma lo zarci" happens to be grammatical, and happens to be what you get when you join A's text with B's text, but it has nothing to do with the conversation between A and B. >=A0("Text" is still ambiguous, > because that which lies within a parenthetical or a quote is also > grammatically a "text", but my default usage is to refer to the largest o= r > highest-level chunk I think we are using the same sense of "text": the chunk of input that the parser is meant to parse in one go. Quoted and parenthetical texts are themselves part of another text, but they could also be seen as independent in some sense, so I don't think that's a problem. > But in case it is relevant, I have not seen any mention of fa'o, the > reserved cmavo that explicitly indicates the end of a piece of text (in t= he > sense of the largest parsible unit), but which I believe is found in no > formal grammar and is almost never used. It is in the PEG grammar, but it's always elidable, unless you want to follow it with non-parsable nonsense that will be ignored. >=A0It was specifically conceived for > situations where one knows that what one is saying cannot parse as a > continuation of what has gone previously, but has been superfluous in Loj= ban > parsers which were designed to inherently assume a single text. Why would something that you put at the end of the text have that effect? Are you saying that the intention was that B's answer to "do klama ma" should be "lo zarci fa'o" so that "lo zarci" is not taken as a continuation of "do klama ma"? That seems like an odd way to go about it. > The most likely "real" use of fa'o to me has been when one gets into some > kind of nested parenthethetical and isn't sure how many and what kind of > terminators are needed to get out to the highest level. Just SU it! :) > Perhaps no one talks about "fa'o" because as designed, it practically can= not > be talked about in Lojban, since its use has absolute metalinguistic forc= e. > =A0"zo fa'o" MAY be the only possible override (and then only if we defin= e it > as such). =A0Any actual unquoted use otherwise inherently breaks off the = text > in which it is used without being part of that text. I believe in PEG you can use it also after ZEI, inside LOhU ... LEhU, and also of course inside ZOI (even probably as the delimiter word). I don't remember whether BU and/or SI kill it. 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.