Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncCN673cmqFBDS98flBBoEXjN2OA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1P4zyI-0002a0-RS; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:46:12 -0700
Received: by gwj19 with SMTP id 19sf83105gwj.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:46:01 -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:received:x-vr-score
         :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=VdMokZRUkBnOBY2LtpsNb9RhhKbC40JrmKPpbjDWtNY=;
        b=FqeDc6T85hQvHcBPrI/w5TLFCnOXAe4ASCVXfeB8HJvMq3ViOBId5fprqp21NWAJHL
         royUZGSlWo2Ki1IlGXFm0tG5ZYJIxQP3EeE6c01Ka0kDD9edKoJnGU/z337lH1I1DTDr
         mth6RsyGxRb5VzNCiVKeU111ufbJe+BqDXkcM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score
         :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to
         :subject:references:in-reply-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=S6efqmLVmz7P2rML25DBD9x1oCzMAFLvth11sXHPIf2KXkdCABChQ+ioFpJ+/CYcaz
         GZZFVTXKItbq/ZWcSMvJdN2m2UTRXwK29I//YNal1SmPuc++V3wwoL5nntN8NREaf9y8
         pRG9PRSWBR26XNz2ge9YZAXIaA8bu3QZdPQDc=
Received: by 10.101.91.11 with SMTP id t11mr66389anl.46.1286732754463;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.100.68.15 with SMTP id q15ls486730ana.2.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010
 10:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.69.7 with SMTP id w7mr1798877ank.6.1286732754063;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.69.7 with SMTP id w7mr1798876ank.6.1286732753956;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net (eastrmmtao105.cox.net [68.230.240.47])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id u5si3623308ana.8.2010.10.10.10.45.53;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.47 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.47;
Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126])
          by eastrmmtao105.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP
          id <20101010174552.RSXI14030.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net>
          for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:45:52 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163])
	by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp
	id H5lo1f00F3Xcbvq025lsEc; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:45:53 -0400
X-VR-Score: -100.00
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=z6CBhH0tHruS0FbwYG+vLjSarkX/HqbUMpkqCCzoucY=
 c=1 sm=1 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8
 a=MF7r1cG6UWZZ11y2nSkA:9 a=DcPZgsNIP-yP2fO9eb4A:7
 a=w3_xdi_DDEAM4ILubYR4XfsqTEQA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10
 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <4CB1FC05.4030108@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:46:45 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work
References: <AANLkTi=2R1tYqwGzuL1oLN448q-aB3BHEcB4Z9h+5FBs@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinNXCzAc_+_f=9jSoG2O-Mup1i8T3bPECE85XYv@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik4+xEqqGdodPE1B=XvJGoL1o0saavdchE8aNWY@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi==Q=kQm6ZFWySFQSu3cT4pGOEBtk_-pZZ2F7A_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimx_LkkfjE3LgtK7rXcE05T9rSH1nNDKexDUczk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinz1db56tSt5u8_A0684cRAxgtw1k_uFcsMb26W@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimjOXsxMKa6LYbBBMzf=hT4-dtC7nGdbEi5MY8v@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimC7b5dj4nLKgeYwzajwpPwdddWKV+RMY652cJS@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=eDLMoqz7UKajDehXxEKYROX6fwYdPwT9LGE=o@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimE=ynAZ5cVrsUXB6ULrgfj8ts_QknS6QM=hFgz@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfmXw8qE7L6e9d1KA=vcE3+_2-x3oB9sU-tY3w@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimsi5eFPPfbLFg7jgDnA-3rNXX+6UkMw852CBMk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinaNdo3eTkWBwdKgUYHobmOUPMKNd1zHkAC_KzG@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikROXvZ0J_KtzpkqxjMhXYVGY2WkBoWbidHJUoG@mail.gmail.com> <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> <AANLkTik1jD726Qe6DNsnWvBNvjZRW0JCUL+DeEHF-Z3B@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik1jD726Qe6DNsnWvBNvjZRW0JCUL+DeEHF-Z3B@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.240.47 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain
 of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en_US>
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Length: 4063

Stela Selckiku wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> 
>>But in case it is relevant, I have not seen any mention of fa'o, the
>>reserved cmavo that explicitly indicates the end of a piece of text (in the
>>sense of the largest parsible unit), but which I believe is found in no
>>formal grammar and is almost never used.  It was specifically conceived for
>>situations where one knows that what one is saying cannot parse as a
>>continuation of what has gone previously, but has been superfluous in Lojban
>>parsers which were designed to inherently assume a single text.
> 
> 
> Oh right, {fa'o}!  I guess we already have that direction, then, and
> we just need its opposite perhaps.  Incidentally, {fa'o} is rather
> often used these days!  Some of us have started using it on Twitter
> and other microblogging sites, to separate the Lojban text from any
> mentions or tags that follow it, like: "mi tavla fo lo melbi fa'o
> #lojban #conlang @lojbab"

Since I am a fossil who doesn't use a cellphone, much less Facebook, 
Twitter and all that new stuff, I am not sure what all that is about, 
but I'll believe you %^)

Nora and I have been reading along in this thread now, and I think we 
understand what the issue is, and see one ramification that has not been 
mentioned.  She mentioned in IRC where there may be several 
conversations going on at once.  I wish to reply to someone effectively 
continuing the "text" that is comprised by the various exchanges in the 
conversation.  Clearly such an explicit continuation needs to be a 
vocative (selma'o COI).  Only when there is one single other
"speaker" that could be continued would it not need to be a vocative.

So I do NOT like using UI, because it has no way to indicate WHAT you 
are continuing.

The first question in my mind (as a linguistic conservative) is whether 
any of the existing COI vocatives would be sufficient.  I could make an 
argument that ta'a as a vocative implies that you are breaking into and 
interrupting an existing text (an what follows is probably something 
unrelated and thus a different "text"), so "ta'anai" could be understood 
as explicitly not interrupting the existing text but rather continuing 
whatever the person addressed was saying.

(Of course, if ta'anai has acquired some other usage, that won't work).

If not ta'a, could any of the others work?

If none of them are quite what is wanted, I will admit that I am more 
amenable to adding cmavo to the COI selma'o than probably any other, 
especially if they are protocol-related as this is, because we knew from 
the beginning that we had not covered all conversation protocol issues.

The other observation is that whatever we are trying for is 
metalinguistic in nature, and thus can probably be expressed using SEI. 
(sei jmina [se'u] being the first possibility that comes to mind, but 
not necessarily the best.  Unlike UI, SEI with the right bridi can 
express what you are adding onto.  And there can be multiple options, 
one bridi expressing that you are completing the other person's sentence 
and a different one expressing that you are picking up where they left 
off, etc).

If people used metalinguistic expression or this sort for now, it would 
be easier to argue on the basis of *usage* that a particular 
metalinguistic cmavo is needed.  But the norm seems to be to coin an 
experimental cmavo rather than trying to stick within the confines of 
the defined language.

(I can live with either approach, but I have never paid attention to 
experimental cmavo coinages, so I don't know what any of them mean, and 
I don't know the tiki well enough to know where to look them up.  But 
that is me.)

lojbab

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.