From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhC6pcnlBBoElOhlFQ@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 10 16:56:57 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P55l7-0004rp-NU; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:57 -0700 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9sf2693967gxk.16 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:48 -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=RHV17URAeN+eooQL2iE2mhegY84eZAObTnaDRh1WTbE=; b=UPmj9wEE2prnjNhwdd6Lgs6U4kG8VFTSO1Y2cqQrhZ8xD4YSrsm+6NYipHmzgVgOj0 PoNJRP0OEeBE8LaJxhP2RZpx8sXhUR8O1PmrFgbHTj5p/vp5pHLxHtsCXWZtiMQV9ROX PrXzN5C6Od0rQFTNbQ8s8HWlP2Iqbzy45K/bY= 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=c23jqCjt9PaXoph2jIiq+VJHBSqWP0pHUFgXuEzakwR7BXXWhzXA00AObXB7u1JKJx K5G8t7WZQ6OTou31i0UUNJeat5Ssip5+4rg/aWlzO2LsgdnaX+WSJQrqTpFrf71OR9+g h+ZxbAVQ5QJus3bFQUt+feOoTf0atQ9rZKluo= Received: by 10.91.196.10 with SMTP id y10mr380910agp.43.1286755002229; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls1441531ibr.2.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.132.135 with SMTP id d7mr305795ict.88.1286755001813; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.132.135 with SMTP id d7mr305794ict.88.1286755001777; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:41 -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 bm7si3838379ibb.2.2010.10.10.16.56.40; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:40 -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 mail-iw0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 37so1648944iwn.15 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.174.5 with SMTP id r5mr4119726ibz.132.1286755000547; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:56:40 -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 209.85.214.170 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=0016364ecf08b8788804924bfe9d --0016364ecf08b8788804924bfe9d 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 8:03 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote= : > > 2010/10/10 Jorge Llamb=EDas > >> > >> A: .i ie pei xamgu > >> B: nai .i na xamgu > > > > Okay, two questions. > > > > 1) What does nai by itself even mean? and > > It's the answer to the "pei" question. > Ah. I see. I would've answered {.ienai}. > > 2) Has anyone, ever, used nai in that way in conversation, as opposed = to > as > > an example of "something that causes this to break"? > > I have no idea. What I'm asking is if you are aware that you are > proposing a change to the currently official language, or whether you > think you are describing the official language. If the latter, you are > wrong. If the former, I'm not convinced by the arguments you have > given. > Then as you so succinctly put it, I'm wrong. > >> > {.i lo broda cu brode lu .i broda lo brodi li'u .i li'o} is a sinlg= e > >> > 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". > > Well, syntactically there is nothing omitted. I'm not trying to be > difficult here, but we seem to be mixing up semantic and syntactic > issues. We are discussing a syntactic issue, right? We are talking > about the syntactic construct "text", not about what we may or may not > choose to loosely call a "text" in a more general sense. We are > discussing the kind of thing we feed to the parser in the hopes that > it is accepted as a valid "text". > I'm sorry, I thought {li'o} meant "omitted text", as in "crap I don't feel like taking the time to make up for such a simple example, so I'll just put '...' there instead."? > >> > {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 > was > > merely providing an example of what I consider the difference between a > > jufra =3D sentence and a text to be. > > OK. Yes, of course a text can consist of several sentences. That has > never been in dispute. So we agree about that. > > > 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. > > The second part is irrelevant to the Lojban syntactic construct called > "text". The first part does not work in general. Some valid > conversations cannot be reduced to a single "text" construct. > > > 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 > each > > new sentence. > > Normally they (especially "mi") only change referents with each new > speaker, not each new sentence. But right, if you parse a whole > conversation as one text, such text will not have a fixed speaker. > That was my point, wasn't it? You lose that property for texts, of > having a fixed speaker. > You and I disagree that texts ever had that property to begin with. I will agree with you that a single sentence will have those values fixed, but it entirely possible for them to change within the same text: A: "doi B xu do djica lonu do jo'u mi klama lo zarcu .i doi C xu do djica lonu mi te vecnu lo cukta" > > 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. > > We are obviously talking about different things, since ".i" cannot be > omitted by B in the last two cases for them to be a single text, so > what's the parenthesis for? The parser will not insert the ".i" for > you the way it will insert an elidable terminator, > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > The parentheses are indication that they don't officially need to be there, even though I don't like the practice of omitting them. And again, we are disagreeing on what a "text" is. --=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. --0016364ecf08b8788804924bfe9d 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 8:03 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/10 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>
>> A: .i ie pei xamgu
>> B: nai .i na xamgu
>
> Okay, two questions.
>
> 1) What does nai by itself even mean? and

It's the answer to the "pei" question.
=

Ah. I see. I would've answered {.ienai}.
=A0
> 2) Has anyone, ever, used nai in that way in conversation, as opposed = to as
> an example of "something that causes this to break"?

I have no idea. What I'm asking is if you are aware that you are<= br> proposing a change to the currently official language, or whether you
think you are describing the official language. If the latter, you are
wrong. If the former, I'm not convinced by the arguments you have
given.

Then as you so succinctly put it= , I'm wrong.
=A0
>> > {.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= 9;o}.
>>
>> Syntactically, "li'o" is not a jufra, it just attach= es 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".

Well, syntactically there is nothing omitted. I'm not trying to b= e
difficult here, but we seem to be mixing up semantic and syntactic
issues. We are discussing a syntactic issue, right? We are talking
about the syntactic construct "text", not about what we may or ma= y not
choose to loosely call a "text" in a more general sense. We are discussing the kind of thing we feed to the parser in the hopes that
it is accepted as a valid "text".

I'= m sorry, I thought {li'o} meant "omitted text", as in "c= rap I don't feel like taking the time to make up for such a simple exam= ple, so I'll just put '...' there instead."?
=A0
>> > {la.alis.} is a single text. It is composed of a large multit= ude 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 cou= ld
>> 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 providing an example of what I consider the difference between = a
> jufra =3D sentence and a text to be.

OK. Yes, of course a text can consist of several sentences. That has<= br> never been in dispute. So we agree about that.

> Unlike you, I consider an entire conversation to be a single "tex= t", in the
> same way that I consider a thread on these groups to be a single text.=

The second part is irrelevant to the Lojban syntactic construct calle= d
"text". The first part does not work in general. Some valid
conversations cannot be reduced to a single "text" construct.

> Also
> apparently unlike you, I don't think that {mi}, {do}, etc. must re= main the
> same throughout a single text, but can - and do - change referents wit= h each
> new sentence.

Normally they (especially "mi") only change referents with = each new
speaker, not each new sentence. But right, if you parse a whole
conversation as one text, such text will not have a fixed speaker.
That was my point, wasn't it? You lose that property for texts, of
having a fixed speaker.

You and I disagree that te= xts ever had that property to begin with. I will agree with you that a sing= le sentence will have those values fixed, but it entirely possible for them= to change within the same text:

A: "doi B xu do djica lonu do jo'u mi klama lo zarcu .i doi C = xu do djica lonu mi te vecnu lo cukta"
=A0
> 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.

We are obviously talking about different things, since ".i"= cannot be
omitted by B in the last two cases for them to be a single text, so
what's the parenthesis for? The parser will not insert the ".i&quo= t; for
you the way it will insert an elidable terminator,

mu'o mi'e xorxes

The parentheses are in= dication that they don't officially need to be there, even though I don= 't like the practice of omitting them. And again, we are disagreeing on= what a "text" is.

--
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.
--0016364ecf08b8788804924bfe9d--