From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhCTzcPlBBoEN7hF9g@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 09 15:03:13 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4hVW-0003RC-K8; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:03:13 -0700 Received: by gya1 with SMTP id 1sf2401298gya.16 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:03:04 -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=4kI1CDetWi1Vw0ADSTFTjpQhPqfqzfOFnp9YDGJt9CA=; b=DeP8Jad9QO2a41xT0Z7Rj0SiSe6iL/lJL/QRn4D0W10kUMgfgrWq9MZLNKnkDXuaBf 77+WADN8K/wWxcDuipffR3Vsd3SxTZ3bZU3xeUasOGuWzRO5GzZfMjz1EXt2HoSYcLng gg5i0H3tSTm4Vc1blTrKmaj5T0VQbROPj5XSE= 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=2prziakb4g3pIoNS6gtp7MVoR6Dpvef9DEKpK+iRr/zH/9vbhT+DzkNYuUolkqE8e7 O9BE0pSv1gyLA2l4qcSnGwip/leNEawz8kBoPB478pSW6h2XwqjGqIXG6fAho3cCi+Ip ZasPUqbucNNTVTTZghq0dh5NH8hjC/uQAVtV0= Received: by 10.90.5.17 with SMTP id 17mr325196age.51.1286661779089; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.112.41 with SMTP id u41ls1058812ibp.1.p; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.58.206 with SMTP id i14mr1193277ibh.0.1286661778614; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.58.206 with SMTP id i14mr1193276ibh.0.1286661778584; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f170.google.com (mail-iw0-f170.google.com [209.85.214.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id bm7si3063394ibb.6.2010.10.09.15.02.57; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.170; Received: by iwn37 with SMTP id 37so657639iwn.1 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.141.132 with SMTP id o4mr887666icu.432.1286661777357; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8136604407292225759@unknownmsgid> References: <20100903032539.GY5990@digitalkingdom.org> <8136604407292225759@unknownmsgid> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:02:57 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work 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 209.85.214.170 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=90e6ba6e8dd82f7ce00492364a91 --90e6ba6e8dd82f7ce00492364a91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Daniel Brockman wrote: > This is a very typical example of someone trying to "standardize" an > aspect of the language that obviously is very context-dependent. This > is impossible and the only effect is to generate endless flame wars. > > 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. > That's fine by me, but the actual cmavo itself was never named, and trying to find what that cmavo is based on it's definition is an extremely difficult task. -- 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. --90e6ba6e8dd82f7ce00492364a91 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Daniel Brockman = <dbrockman@gmai= l.com> wrote:
This is a very typical example of someone trying to "standardize"= an
aspect of the language that obviously is very context-dependent. This
is impossible and the only effect is to generate endless flame wars.

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 o= nly have
to use the explicit marker in unusual cases, or when extreme
unambiguity is needed.

That's fine by me, but = the actual cmavo itself was never named, and trying to find what that cmavo= is based on it's definition is an extremely difficult task.
=A0
--
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.
--90e6ba6e8dd82f7ce00492364a91--