Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Is "i" the end or the beginning of a statement? what
 about "niho"?
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <8f8f40c3-8dc6-472e-b0e0-e8ecf43b18ec@googlegroups.com>
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <495971bf-eefd-2654-156a-7615bb301883@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 23:06:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8f8f40c3-8dc6-472e-b0e0-e8ecf43b18ec@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

Yeah, I've been annoyed by this issue of ambiguity of end of=20
transmission. Adding ".i" at the end of your final utterance technically=20
doesn't solve the problem, as the listener will probably expect you're=20
going to say another sentence=E2=80=A6 Even {mu'o} is unsatisfying: when on=
e=20
hears mu'o and then a pause, they can't be 100% sure the speaker isn't=20
going to add "do" for {mu'o do} or even {mi'e ~~~} after that. {fa'o}=20
has been designed for marking an unconditional end of transmission, but=20
I find that rather too rigid. I'd have preferred a particle saying=20
"Right now I've nothing more to add, yet I might change my mind=20
afterwards and say something else. But so far please assume I've=20
finished and feel free to speak up if you desire so"; maybe with the=20
same grammar as ".i".

As of now in spoken Lojban, people seem to most often rely on the length=20
of silence after an utterance for judging whether the time is=20
appropriate to speak up to their turn. Yet Lojban was intended not to=20
rely and prosody and sound length for carrying meaning, so using silence=20
for signifying an end of transmission isn't great. On the other hand if=20
you use {fa'o} it's prescribed anything you'd say afterward should be=20
dismissed, which is a little too extreme I think.

=E2=80=94Ilmen.


On 13/07/2017 07:43, vpbroman@gmail.com wrote:
> The question of whether "i" terminates a statement or begins one may=20
> not seem to make a lot of difference,
> but for me it determines whether I place the "i" at the end or=20
> beginning of a written line and determines when I pause in speech=20
> between statements.
> From the syntax rules, there seems to be no distinction, because "i"=20
> mainly serves as a statement separator,
> and at the beginning of an utterance as well as at the end the "i" is=20
> permitted but optional.
>
> The critical question for interpreting the "i" may be:  what happens=20
> when there is a long pause between statements, or perhaps a speaker turn?
> At what point is the prior statement complete, ready to wrap and ship,=20
> fully committed?
> It is clear that no statement is complete until you have seen the "i"=20
> (or "niho"...),
> and if it hasn't emerged yet, we are still waiting to see how the=20
> statement may yet turn out.
> Most bridi do not have every sumti place filled, but even if all the=20
> places are filled and then a delay stretches on and on,
> you cannot tell whether there is still a "vau zoho" to come, or a "fau=20
> lo nu lo xarju ba vofli", or a "giha mi bebna".
> Until you hear the "i", you are just left hanging.
>
> That is why "i" terminates statements, and why I place it at the end=20
> of written lines, and before a spoken pause if I pause.
>
> Syntax like "i je bo" makes it seem like "i" may be starting this=20
> statement, but I think not.
> The "i" is terminating the previous statement, even if that statement=20
> is empty.
> "i i je bo fagri" and "i je bo fagri" are equally grammatical utterances,
> while "je bo fagri" is ungrammatical because "je" does not connect=20
> with anything on its LHS.
>
> This made me wonder whether "niho" and "nohi" should be treated the=20
> same as "i", and now I think not.
> First, even though people try to do it, you cannot say "... niho ba bo=20
> ...".
> The "jek/joik/stag BO" connects two statements together, and this does=20
> not work over a paragraph break.
> Separate paragraphs do not connect this way.
>
> Second, when you are finishing one statement, you often do not know=20
> whether the next statement is going to be in a new paragraph.
> You haven't decided what you will say next yet at that point.
> Only after the delay for thought in between statements might you newly=20
> realize: now I'm gonna turn to something different.
> And since it is different, it won't be connected to the previous=20
> statement logically or with a tag.
>
> That is why I now begin new paragraphs with the niho or nohi at the=20
> start of the written line, and after a possible spoken pause.
> The "i" that optionally terminates the prior statement may or may not=20
> be included just before the "niho".
>
> E.g.
>
> mi pu gleki lo nu penmi do i
> je bo mi terpa lo nu rinsa do i
>
> niho mi ba finti lo se cukta poi srana lo nu terpa i
>
> mihe bremenli
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.