From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCuo8TlBBoEUZStag@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 09 18:07:11 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4kNX-0005Sm-4E; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:07:11 -0700 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf536561wwe.16 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:07:00 -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=CIWVgL7z0BMVYh4umTCc73urX3sMuL6Hh5YLG0Stobs=; b=MMsdOoWFhEdvtJaKBveVIYFCy8sVUB7wi1As6HOpfXbaxd8cgwpVHteph3RfFvjZcD mIkOfQfHkNg+WEPf9W5+busvdndqThgWcmHEoivAb+se2jbtreVNtNwlcJyhb8q5P5mb crZPo9BpqTXsHCgxOOkjskJfYHG9S82NpHpx0= 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=EOa+ZWOpOWqxQ8IcUFBRngt1E5F5eJYNR5eKg4X7lqzTMYWe8vtqwrhGZby8qqcgrP WpN4TtW/xeTFgNWF3yo22Z8bXDLVajMf11hEF5HT9wKn+CWLV9DxOLBTF6r4oCVNyCmt 1jo/wUVVb4NKFGldShT6/T1eTvnIK8dsByzk4= Received: by 10.216.237.89 with SMTP id x67mr86602weq.13.1286672814239; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:06:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.237.134 with SMTP id y6ls952297weq.2.p; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.48.68 with SMTP id u46mr115531web.12.1286672813195; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.48.68 with SMTP id u46mr115530web.12.1286672813098; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x80si169162weq.12.2010.10.09.18.06.52; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.181; Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so1067091wyf.12 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:06:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.72.213 with SMTP id n21mr4196956wbj.66.1286672811650; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 18:06:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100903032539.GY5990@digitalkingdom.org> <8136604407292225759@unknownmsgid> <6632159152572093565@unknownmsgid> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:06:51 -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 74.125.82.181 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 On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > > I'd say that's a good enough solution for the problem of explicitly stating > whether one is continuing another's jufra or not. Considering how often a > person would want to be explicit - which I would guess is mutce rirci - the > few cases in which it would be unintuitive are, to misuse a phrase, > statistically irrelevant. OK, but it should be clear that "di'ai" is metalanguage, it is not part of the language, it's not a word that the parser will recognize. The parser will recognize it as a cmavo form, so "zo di'ai" is fine to talk about it, just like one can talk about any other undefined cmavo, but it will not be recognized as anything meaningful to the grammar. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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.