Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P54SV-0001jj-EY; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:39 -0700 Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40sf670943wyb.16 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:29 -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=KthAW8FeSUt+9a+OBUaSEz3GDjlWm3MCodcOT0bJOyA=; b=l9Gh4jfG3eK0i7z6rCj6FnYc9pPfgjnOfbX/TjA4xewZ3JqFuOxb181aDizX0DJDtJ uhdDDbAOkdtDSwZd442MPHYLEEs0P8mWTWH07xLTxseD+yAhYNwMu5KAn9TUsd967lnR zYbcXJI3z5xvmxU4ahAlLaz3eyC0DuYZgtlSc= 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=XtlH71OR+71b6qgIj9YUbNPUZg616qNzzIiMx/KYPoMKt08ymW/6olmfpd8ij1QwpY 67DDuLCh6kiBnu6RxU/c16hGiTJo925c9+FbOv/XwAudyo2MH4pvSW7ivTu5/Qj7e4BN z6bq8IPKu6DsMJDpk4DQa4vV2HkBpgRultZ8g= Received: by 10.216.237.9 with SMTP id x9mr570297weq.26.1286750002959; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.242.202 with SMTP id i52ls1196339wer.0.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.244.134 with SMTP id m6mr9474wer.13.1286750002253; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.244.134 with SMTP id m6mr9473wer.13.1286750002224; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id o31si829447wej.2.2010.10.10.15.33.21; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.181; Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so1551779wyf.12 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.135.203 with SMTP id o11mr4948879wbt.162.1286749998556; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:33:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:33:18 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: {.i} and {ni'o}, continuation or new jufra From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= 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 74.125.82.181 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: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1954 On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > > This is where the misunderstanding lies. I'm not talking about treating > everything everyone says as though a single speaker said the entirety. I'm > talking about whether or not to treat something said by one person and > something said by another person as a single jufra, which means to me, the > bit between two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s. You understand that with the current official grammar, that doesn't work, right? A: .i ie pei xamgu B: nai .i na xamgu The bit between the two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s is not grammatical. In at least that one example B's text must be taken as a separate text. > {.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'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. > {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.) > These are not the same things. I really don't know what you're saying with that. We are considering conversations, i.e. (in my understanding) exchange of texts between different speakers, not something like a book which is one long text by one speaker/author. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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.