From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhDLjMnlBBoE2dRD3g@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 10 16:03:56 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P54vo-0002ua-9Q; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:56 -0700 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9sf2686865gxk.16 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:45 -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=cOhsGWvZw3hPYUep99IixJFe50s3tXIi6WVqHItIh10=; b=kZwHPjni6oqno2JvupVw7CEaBl8aH+VDx48Z2P1T+u3UFrRkvMzSWbtNkA5dNE3Cdb AndHg0r9LHbsysHe25O38u1s2rgTp8iRoC4D743MhhOGandRHaXxSefqalHbn+6g1UgZ yFO/bEyeQYySftozcqbLir7rctGbP91rDmIAA= 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=ykSYIAwBNqWEFF9Anib0wtlY2rEOXYqqwqHfc+2gHy6c4W6wyP6S6ieo153pRzpZOM Km1pn4Ki3eaOxzJNLAA+w6SnmhYGO7ABC3RmUl60f11xcupNRwxrUjZlBiumktZLIiVC DyHdoN6Yg+IkTPa7wJf/ilt6W4krTSxdp3Rc0= Received: by 10.90.18.6 with SMTP id 6mr374939agr.8.1286751819720; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.180.73 with SMTP id bt9ls1360534ibb.0.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.22.142 with SMTP id o14mr312971icb.68.1286751819408; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.22.142 with SMTP id o14mr312970icb.68.1286751819384; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f171.google.com (mail-iw0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b32si3568509ibq.5.2010.10.10.16.03.38; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.171; Received: by mail-iw0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 38so270795iwn.30 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.209.18 with SMTP id ge18mr1440947icb.309.1286751818220; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:03:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:03:38 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: {.i} and {ni'o}, continuation or new jufra 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 209.85.214.171 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=20cf303bf6620a02c604924b41e3 --20cf303bf6620a02c604924b41e3 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 7:04 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote= : > > > > This is where the misunderstanding lies. I'm not talking about treating > > everything everyone says as though a single speaker said the entirety. > I'm > > talking about whether or not to treat something said by one person and > > something said by another person as a single jufra, which means to me, > the > > bit between two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s. > > You understand that with the current official grammar, that doesn't work, > right? > > A: .i ie pei xamgu > B: nai .i na xamgu > Okay, two questions. 1) What does nai by itself even mean? and 2) Has anyone, ever, used nai in that way in conversation, as opposed to as an example of "something that causes this to break"? > The bit between the two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s is not > grammatical. In at least that one example B's text must be taken as a > separate text. > > > {.i lo broda cu brode lu .i broda lo brodi li'u .i li'o} is a sinlge > jufra > > followed by one or more omitted jufra, as indicated by {li'o}. > > Syntactically, "li'o" is not a jufra, it just attaches to ".i", but > I'm not sure how this has to do with anything anyway. > Hence my use of the word "indicated", which is a synonym for "symbolized". > > {la.alis.} is a single text. It is composed of a large multitude of > jufra. > > Yes course, with a single speaker/author, Lewis Carrol. > > (Strictly speaking, it won't completely parse with the current > grammar, but the breaking points are very few. In principle it could > have been a single text, yes. It is not a conversation where texts are > exchanged between two or more peoiple.) > Neither of those points seem to have any relevance to this discussion. I wa= s merely providing an example of what I consider the difference between a jufra =3D sentence and a text to be. > > These are not the same things. > > I really don't know what you're saying with that. We are considering > conversations, i.e. (in my understanding) exchange of texts between > different speakers, not something like a book which is one long text > by one speaker/author. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > Unlike you, I consider an entire conversation to be a single "text", in the same way that I consider a thread on these groups to be a single text. Also apparently unlike you, I don't think that {mi}, {do}, etc. must remain the same throughout a single text, but can - and do - change referents with eac= h new sentence. A: "(.i) [bridi] .i [bridi]" two jufra, one text. A: "(.i) [bridi]" B: "(.i) [bridi]" two jufra, one text. A: "(.i) ma klama" B: "(.i) lo zarci (go'i)" two jufra, one text. --=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. --20cf303bf6620a02c604924b41e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2010/10/10 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com&= gt;
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is where the misunderstanding lies. I'm not talking about tre= ating
> everything everyone says as though a single speaker said the entirety.= I'm
> talking about whether or not to treat something said by one person and=
> something said by another person as a single jufra, which means to me,= the
> bit between two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s.

You understand that with the current official grammar, that doesn'= ;t work, right?

A: .i ie pei xamgu
B: nai .i na xamgu

Okay, two questions.

1) = What does nai by itself even mean? and
2) Has anyone, ever, used nai in = that way in conversation, as opposed to as an example of "something th= at causes this to break"?
=A0
The bit between the two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s is not
grammatical. In at least that one example B's text must be taken as a separate text.

> {.i lo broda cu brode lu .i broda lo brodi li'u .i li'o} is a = sinlge jufra
> followed by one or more omitted jufra, as indicated by {li'o}.

Syntactically, "li'o" is not a jufra, it just attaches = to ".i", but
I'm not sure how this has to do with anything anyway.
<= div>
Hence my use of the word "indicated", which is a synonym = for "symbolized".
=A0
> {la.alis.} is a single text. It is composed of a large multitude of ju= fra.

Yes course, with a single speaker/author, Lewis Carrol.

(Strictly speaking, it won't completely parse with the current
grammar, but the breaking points are very few. In principle it could
have been a single text, yes. It is not a conversation where texts are
exchanged between two or more peoiple.)

Neither of= those points seem to have any relevance to this discussion. I was merely p= roviding an example of what I consider the difference between a jufra =3D s= entence and a text to be.
=A0
> These are not the same things.

I really don't know what you're saying with that. We are cons= idering
conversations, i.e. (in my understanding) exchange of texts between
different speakers, not something like a book which is one long text
by one speaker/author.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Unli= ke you, I consider an entire conversation to be a single "text", = in the same way that I consider a thread on these groups to be a single tex= t. Also apparently unlike you, I don't think that {mi}, {do}, etc. must= remain the same throughout a single text, but can - and do - change refere= nts with each new sentence.

A: "(.i) [bridi] .i [bridi]" two jufra, one text.

A: &= quot;(.i) [bridi]"
B: "(.i) [bridi]" two jufra, one text.=

A: "(.i) ma klama"
B: "(.i) lo zarci (go'i)&q= uot; two jufra, one text.

--
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.
--20cf303bf6620a02c604924b41e3--