Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4M9m-0001P6-8D; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:21 -0700 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9sf1504909gxk.16 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:12 -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=6e378Dbojv9l5TU6VYi0scJDQZAPHabPYh9GRUPgRFY=; b=Awq+7QhTH/qZno6xWRveTjCsceynZTIB4Wdw7ODC+2GjTo5BMcUZbUUnXv8or9OoUN HsQJG1Snd1uR29XhOAfQyiZ9t31gBFMavc6wb4g/h+m/ui5LPHcxmkm1qjZy+WNx9CGB mTcvJulataAJkAcw6BwgUh2m0nO9dsHlWcFOU= 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=QY60ar6FNqEtCmvf27xfaphljmzmxWRT+rgkbfPFtXxR87xSSdsGMWYgMWfyWb94/2 lwVJn8pmKKETA85MrlMPYwGsHpVH4Nk+b9PG0/X0SaRM0k8+4SRlIupOxJbAVKQRNcz4 GAGcgR5dZ0noSChpNykr8qKy1FV0s5yfOp+IQ= Received: by 10.91.159.11 with SMTP id l11mr283669ago.24.1286579706847; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.55.74 with SMTP id t10ls695940ibg.3.p; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.160.79 with SMTP id m15mr886729ibx.6.1286579706476; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.160.79 with SMTP id m15mr886728ibx.6.1286579706172; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com (mail-iw0-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id e4si2486240ibc.4.2010.10.08.16.15.05; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.169; Received: by mail-iw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 1so1199210iwn.14 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.119.147 with SMTP id b19mr324026icr.259.1286579700971; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.16 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:15:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100903032539.GY5990@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:15:00 -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 209.85.214.169 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=90e6ba6149780d39650492232efa Content-Length: 5051 --90e6ba6149780d39650492232efa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2010/10/8 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > > General Negators has just been made GREEN by me and is ready for review= . > > Where do we do our reviews? I'm not too happy with this example: > > .i.ienai mi na go'i > "[Disagreement] I will not do that." > > "I will not do that" sounds like "I don't intend to do that", i.e. a > refusal to do something someone else has asked them to do. Without > context it's impossible to tell, it might actually mean that the > speaker truly is disagreeing with something said about them rather > than refusing to do something asked of them, in which case "ie nai" > would be appropraite, but without context the English doesn't really > suggest that. > > Then there is the usual problem, does "ienai broda" mean that the > speaker disagrees about "broda" being true, or do they disagree about > the preceding statement being true, and offer "broda" to oppose it? I > think it should be disagreement about broda, since the other should be > "ienai .i broda", but I'm sure someone else will want to say that the > speaker is actually asserting "broda". > > If we want to avoid the whole discussion, I suggest changing to > something like, for example: > > ie nai .i ta ba'e na blanu > "No, that's NOT blue." > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > Go ahead and change it, then. Personally, I would say {.i.ienai ta ba'e na blanu}. If I wanted to disagre= e about {ta ba'e na blanu}, I would say {ta ba'e na.ienai blanu}. --=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. --90e6ba6149780d39650492232efa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2010/10/8 Jorge Llamb=EDas <= ;jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> General Negators has just been made GREEN by me and is ready for revie= w.

Where do we do our reviews? I'm not too happy with this example:<= br>
.i.ienai mi na go'i
"[Disagreement] I will not do that."

"I will not do that" sounds like "I don't intend to do t= hat", i.e. a
refusal to do something someone else has asked them to do. Without
context it's impossible to tell, it might actually mean that the
speaker truly is disagreeing with something said about them rather
than refusing to do something asked of them, in which case "ie nai&quo= t;
would be appropraite, but without context the English doesn't really suggest that.

Then there is the usual problem, does "ienai broda" mean that the=
speaker disagrees about "broda" being true, or do they disagree a= bout
the preceding statement being true, and offer "broda" to oppose i= t? I
think it should be disagreement about broda, since the other should be
"ienai .i broda", but I'm sure someone else will want to say = that the
speaker is actually asserting "broda".

If we want to avoid the whole discussion, I suggest changing to
something like, for example:

=A0ie nai .i ta ba'e na blanu
=A0"No, that's NOT blue."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Go ahead and change it= , then.

Personally, I would say {.i.ienai ta ba'e na blanu}. If = I wanted to disagree about {ta ba'e na blanu}, I would say {ta ba'e= na.ienai blanu}.

--
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.
--90e6ba6149780d39650492232efa--