Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCb8MjlBBoEH_BvOw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1P53zE-00008G-5e; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:23 -0700
Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf666223wwe.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:13 -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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=I7rzXSJOZSRrq39V7T9Lp4awO7UezchwhStghcgWMIM=;
        b=2vQvhDLAWsl92Vtxm2GFo4i8XU+CCtBIsWa55qSJRxEvLwt93ZZI9utnI1v8JDMAwn
         jBrdOcp8n4dhiKW09lsyG+8eYpxzMZGuWaF2QvMuZWJ8y6AwcxvEJ+eeIDzidNbLKenV
         Qu7b5TJkoHoM/8MfYCBfiKt0ErS2Xm/NOxl3o=
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:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=bTsGub7zM5nCs5pQwSCzjZnr8nQB8SHNRNEqtSZgH+uJ0e0rdtcmdTTSK6dSaFS+yk
         7O4UIVbf4h5kqErs7llAR7KQ6Az+HgYHsQDe9KCcl6t+lWpxIvILPuNyRwi9j5qkACm2
         2OWRWwagbO/kxyAiVnPO87Ql1iOo5qDVdkeqI=
Received: by 10.216.145.167 with SMTP id p39mr37983wej.10.1286748187547;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.227.39.10 with SMTP id d10ls927076wbe.2.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010
 15:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.137.80 with SMTP id v16mr228131wbt.20.1286748186876;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.137.80 with SMTP id v16mr228130wbt.20.1286748186843;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a37si2631376wba.7.2010.10.10.15.03.05;
        Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.182;
Received: by mail-wy0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 36so280108wyb.41
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.127.65 with SMTP id f1mr4951419wbs.118.1286748185657; Sun,
 10 Oct 2010 15:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org>
References: <AANLkTi=2R1tYqwGzuL1oLN448q-aB3BHEcB4Z9h+5FBs@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>
	<AANLkTimzz=Exgf-94tnkebibZs8ZhtmO_Z9meeorSLKj@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org>
	<AANLkTi=-z=KfdA3EQYF-g2Ab9v=PXCHZGr0g=17RBF3j@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org>
	<AANLkTikJQAkx145XeQBC=f5KBq0wyLz_yd4wgkCH8Bbk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinFLROKSf7WLn3r82hHVLGUjTUx6VLG=MereADY@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimU6eie6HXqfVYWCKEYxBEn=uvyRk+oRbsCSyGv@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=5rsT0HCwd+aO+Pyt-2r6Q06jxss0zk2e+B+LE@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimVM9COtdvBy6oH66imQOmMWXbumv3GQjYw8JhG@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:03:05 -0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=eC0yrzcPj8DLqRVK+dnzQgt+-diwO0aM7rrj-@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.182 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: <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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 1883

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wro=
te:
> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
>> I see the disadvantages (you lose the information that a text has a
>> speaker which is referred to as "mi" in the text and an audience which
>> is referred to as "do" in the text), but I still can't see the
>> advantages. What are the advantages of treating the whole conversation
>> as one text?
>
> Syntactically, only that it takes one pass through the parser rather than
> many.

Except when the parse of the full thing fails, in which case you still
have to try each piece again to see if the individual pieces parse,
right? Or are you saying that when the individual pieces parse but the
concatenation fails, the conversation as a whole fails?

Do you no longer agree with what you taught in your lessons?

> Pragmatically, while "mi" and "do" change their meanings with time (as do
> ri, ra, di'u etc), most referents hold their value regardless of time,
> speaker, etc. =A0Any semantic analysis has to treat them as a single text=
.
> =A0Otherwise, somewhat-ambiguous semantics become unintelligible semantic=
s.

Of course any semantic analysis needs to take context into account,
and the preceding text is most definitely part of the context of a
given text.

I'm still not seeing the advantage of treating a conversation
syntactically as a single text. It doesn't always work, so is your
rule: "if you can blend everything into one text, do it, otherwise
treat each part as a separate text"? Or what?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=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.