From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhCYy8jlBBoEjAg9Iw@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 10 13:44:24 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P52km-0004uS-VD; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:24 -0700 Received: by gya1 with SMTP id 1sf2664210gya.16 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:15 -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=aIvttZn784qD1gGuhvW3kOwxd7v2OgX05c8Tlovxib8=; b=hN1Y0lHMWumkWQKJN8IYFbxObP6IqGbw46QORq0AzNC3VIeqBznbaHDwcH9DyeXO+/ /uh+dIbvIJYiwexpHoYrswTwIzDJcr+RHLBC/KmAjIcEMP9o9n7n6vtfQvCua3TLifpp T40kWvt8271JGP47LN1sHdsz1Doep6JLg1uNg= 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=Z7dASbWqbhLVMpXmwv/biLJUeQ32dOWptuag5nMxUGmqwLxWj57sdYJniJRxcW4jnM XkX39fh1yEYoBMeOBWtIY/XnV58FOJq1Sabq1nXWT84sTtUXsKB8WaVGnsgkdaSOndtx 0B5nQRvyImur+fO2vT5cwYH0ITPI3nRJbbPe8= Received: by 10.91.11.24 with SMTP id o24mr374065agi.7.1286743448575; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.112.41 with SMTP id u41ls1399346ibp.1.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.149.83 with SMTP id s19mr1422418ibv.2.1286743448329; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.149.83 with SMTP id s19mr1422417ibv.2.1286743448292; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f179.google.com (mail-iw0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b32si3500841ibq.5.2010.10.10.13.44.07; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.179; Received: by mail-iw0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 35so182020iwn.24 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.8.18 with SMTP id g18mr1578041icg.34.1286743447141; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> <4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org> <4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:44:07 -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 209.85.214.179 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=005045016166157e2c0492494e4e --005045016166157e2c0492494e4e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2010/10/10 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote= : > > > > Also, if you remember, my pragmatic decision as to whether a new speake= r > =3D a > > new text is determined by whether the new speaker begins with {.i} or > > {ni'o}, i.e. it is a continuation if not, and a next text if so., > > What does that buy you? What advantage do you see in treating the > utterances produced by different speakers in a conversation as if they > were a single text? > > I see the disadvantages (you lose the information that a text has a > speaker which is referred to as "mi" in the text and an audience which > is referred to as "do" in the text), but I still can't see the > advantages. What are the advantages of treating the whole conversation > as one text? > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > The disadvantage is that my human brain has to mentally insert the elided {.i}. Not being a stupid machine, I am able to intuitively determine whethe= r a person is continuing another persons text or merely not bothering to star= t with {.i} based on context and the content of the two or more persons' speeches. Because the practice of eliding the intial {.i} is /ambiguous/, I don't do it myself. The advantage is, it is both easy and possible to continue another person's jufra by the simple method of /not/ beginning your speech with {.i}. --=20 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 d= o zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=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. --005045016166157e2c0492494e4e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2010/10/10 Jorge Llamb=EDas &l= t;jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, if you remember, my pragmatic decision as to whether a new speak= er =3D a
> new text is determined by whether the new speaker begins with {.i} or<= br> > {ni'o}, i.e. it is a continuation if not, and a next text if so.,<= br>
What does that buy you? What advantage do you see in treating the
utterances produced by different speakers in a conversation as if they
were a single text?

I see the disadvantages (you lose the information that a text has a
speaker which is referred to as "mi" in the text and an audience = which
is referred to as "do" in the text), but I still can't see th= e
advantages. What are the advantages of treating the whole conversation
as one text?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

The disadvantage is th= at my human brain has to mentally insert the elided {.i}. Not being a stupi= d machine, I am able to intuitively determine whether a person is continuin= g another persons text or merely not bothering to start with {.i} based on = context and the content of the two or more persons' speeches. Because t= he practice of eliding the intial {.i} is /ambiguous/, I don't do it my= self.

The advantage is, it is both easy and possible to continue another pers= on's jufra by the simple method of /not/ beginning your speech with {.i= }.

--
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.
--005045016166157e2c0492494e4e--