Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhDm_s3lBBoEUhypeA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1P5Pmc-0005C0-QN; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:57 -0700
Received: by gyh3 with SMTP id 3sf412371gyh.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:40 -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=b8RZ1WxzYTVVnkH8l2z+ELmizz93re/DlD3zSYQxI0k=;
        b=Vyy2f8QlyD4E6l68TA6ZNls875zao0QvzpVpFvx3pjxPJOEckzCZIRyxxFYUqBtEGR
         EzVGGH/1XLZp2S0UFSh4ZFih2sORhFTdaky2XyEoTjHyBjxsVEjMabaWABxlr7bav2GS
         ExaZNosWb5kcUFLuOMPNDenlXTpoQ36ykYQIY=
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=OcJJW5q+jmlvWkPyAX3hF7UBSbbB0werX8ESaZa+uEXxSPYZ7Wq1QVSAZQd8rcalA/
         QaHLd+SUkazPS8biWzSoqltAQ6BFNz0n96K4ZhunIvdWBVm/gpqiL1aStILnKjOWk2WN
         3eBH/n2VzqCeBYA8r0FXEsNdaovgYS4yDSYX8=
Received: by 10.101.26.35 with SMTP id d35mr70241anj.54.1286831974159;
        Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.101.131.11 with SMTP id i11ls881421ann.5.p; Mon, 11 Oct 2010
 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.174.15 with SMTP id w15mr2173510ane.40.1286831973614;
        Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.174.15 with SMTP id w15mr2173509ane.40.1286831973590;
        Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f178.google.com (mail-gx0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id q5si5095334anf.9.2010.10.11.14.19.32;
        Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.178;
Received: by gxk23 with SMTP id 23so1953961gxk.37
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.163.70 with SMTP id b6mr738540icy.338.1286831972388; Mon,
 11 Oct 2010 14:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinEzbZDTGcojU-MpoxJtvzOyOVg=Uq__2JL5ECR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=2R1tYqwGzuL1oLN448q-aB3BHEcB4Z9h+5FBs@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>
	<AANLkTi=eC0yrzcPj8DLqRVK+dnzQgt+-diwO0aM7rrj-@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org>
	<AANLkTikDa_qf9vK0wEeu-LsGmby0dVg5Mc7aAsMOPCEy@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim5UyGXXc5m0aBySDaUPCXYrBh=81fyRz3om19q@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikJs4ti8DLAJ7HyOrdSdK4yxdf2QTWffdGgLw=S@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim7rNwE0jFa9vuNZoobFh0vpKt5wO9Gw7XAwpAc@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikbuZNVhZqs85t4WyWKYmLsxT4oY6a6i38Efakh@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinzdG4_by2tPeJfbSy0FPnZ0Nn9yro2NOUK-sB5@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinEzbZDTGcojU-MpoxJtvzOyOVg=Uq__2JL5ECR@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:19:32 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTim2HXc8m+piP1X7TBZoX6d48NvtWr4hUR9fto6O@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
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 209.85.161.178 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: <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: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6136109990e404925dea80
Content-Length: 6780

--90e6ba6136109990e404925dea80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2010/10/11 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > You're right. They don't parse as single texts. They also exhibit a
> practice
> > I frown on, and if they didn't follow that practice, they would. So, as
> far
> > as I'm concerned, your point is moot.
>
> OK, so you frown on the standard use of the language as taught in
> lojbab's lessons and in CLL. That was my moot point. It's just that
> before, you seemed to be disagreeing that that's what you were doing.
>
> Now that we are in agreement about what the official standard is, we
> can discuss your reform proposal if you want. But it didn't make sense
> to talk about the proposal if we were not even clear on what the
> current standard is.
>
> So, with your proposal a speaker can't make a grammatical contribution
> to a conversation unless they correct the ungrammatical parts that
> went on before, because if they respond with something grammatical by
> itself to something ungrammatical, the result will in all likelihood
> be ungrammatical. So a relatively safe approach would be to always
> start your part of the conversation with "su". That way you don't have
> to check if everything said so far parses correctly. (Only "relatively
> safe", because in some cases your "su" could be killed by someone
> else's dangling "zo", for example, so you still have to be somewhat
> careful.)
>
> Another problem I see is, what if someone barges in on an ongoing
> conversation? They don't have all the information about what went on
> before, so how can they make sure that their contribution will result
> in grammatical Lojban? Since their contribution will be automatically
> appended to the ongoing conversation, there's no way for them to know
> what they are adding to.
>
> No, I still think the rule "new speaker starts new chunk-to-parse" as
> default is much more sane.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

Whether or not to begin an utterance with {.i} was never the point of
discussion. Whether or not {.i} is required for an utterance to be
grammatical was never the point of the discussion. I am not, was not, and
will not be making any "proposal" to change the grammar of Lojban to requir=
e
{.i} in such cases as it is currently optional.

The POINT of the discussion is, whether an utterance from a new speaker is =
a
new "text" or not.

--=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.


--90e6ba6136109990e404925dea80
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">2010/10/11 Jorge Llamb=EDas <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllambias@gmail.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;=
 border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Jonathan Jones &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:eyeonus@gmail.com">eyeonus@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; You&#39;re right. They don&#39;t parse as single texts. They also exhi=
bit a practice<br>
&gt; I frown on, and if they didn&#39;t follow that practice, they would. S=
o, as far<br>
&gt; as I&#39;m concerned, your point is moot.<br>
<br>
</div>OK, so you frown on the standard use of the language as taught in<br>
lojbab&#39;s lessons and in CLL. That was my moot point. It&#39;s just that=
<br>
before, you seemed to be disagreeing that that&#39;s what you were doing.<b=
r>
<br>
Now that we are in agreement about what the official standard is, we<br>
can discuss your reform proposal if you want. But it didn&#39;t make sense<=
br>
to talk about the proposal if we were not even clear on what the<br>
current standard is.<br>
<br>
So, with your proposal a speaker can&#39;t make a grammatical contribution<=
br>
to a conversation unless they correct the ungrammatical parts that<br>
went on before, because if they respond with something grammatical by<br>
itself to something ungrammatical, the result will in all likelihood<br>
be ungrammatical. So a relatively safe approach would be to always<br>
start your part of the conversation with &quot;su&quot;. That way you don&#=
39;t have<br>
to check if everything said so far parses correctly. (Only &quot;relatively=
<br>
safe&quot;, because in some cases your &quot;su&quot; could be killed by so=
meone<br>
else&#39;s dangling &quot;zo&quot;, for example, so you still have to be so=
mewhat<br>
careful.)<br>
<br>
Another problem I see is, what if someone barges in on an ongoing<br>
conversation? They don&#39;t have all the information about what went on<br=
>
before, so how can they make sure that their contribution will result<br>
in grammatical Lojban? Since their contribution will be automatically<br>
appended to the ongoing conversation, there&#39;s no way for them to know<b=
r>
what they are adding to.<br>
<br>
No, I still think the rule &quot;new speaker starts new chunk-to-parse&quot=
; as<br>
default is much more sane.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div></blockquote></div><br>Whether or not to begi=
n an utterance with {.i} was never the point of discussion. Whether or not =
{.i} is required for an utterance to be grammatical was never the point of =
the discussion. I am not, was not, and will not be making any &quot;proposa=
l&quot; to change the grammar of Lojban to require {.i} in such cases as it=
 is currently optional.<br>
<br>The POINT of the discussion is, whether an utterance from a new speaker=
 is a new &quot;text&quot; or not.<br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>mu&#39;o mi&=
#39;e .aionys.<br><br>.i.a&#39;o.e&#39;e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be d=
enpa bu .i doi luk. mi patfu do zo&#39;o<br>
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )<br><br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l=
ist?hl=3Den.<br />



--90e6ba6136109990e404925dea80--