Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCt7NPlBBoEwl-D2Q@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1P5ok6-0006zo-F4; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:54 -0700
Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf1269915wwe.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:44 -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=QTx7LzoWdCfl9Ox4IWnBB14s+COfscjrA3BCxR72u9g=;
        b=NNjAyhxsvHVc6we56+UyYw/lH01TGxTX0rrThJ2fLaobaWGrMP5amCMtl3aClVwOjv
         mGqB7EdRNOoDvhJXWWF8LdOt2cN86Wdg8jGhzlu2f4xkZLAAl00v38QrONjELEv70A4q
         umgWYjtt5yrbge63bF6YyWCZfg0bZcbj7EKcU=
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=EysxUqDFgqHtNFQlCHaj6qNh9/Sh7JLPOU5P/thcALzVX8s3fIv5a5IW1Newjwn/ym
         kupPLNc2WjlUNDFFOds3hj2pwOr1bP8eXZE87m59EDEXVLONFYcNjwgCI/CKfjmmRDBa
         sdP3WR5v3QydtnXIYDemYt7FMaXhsfu9gBQRw=
Received: by 10.216.237.35 with SMTP id x35mr615711weq.20.1286927917539;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.216.238.19 with SMTP id z19ls203496weq.2.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010
 16:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.220.221 with SMTP id o71mr23434wep.2.1286927916613;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.220.221 with SMTP id o71mr23433wep.2.1286927916560;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m20si905595weq.11.2010.10.12.16.58.35;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.44;
Received: by mail-ww0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 40so5745871wwj.1
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.142.198 with SMTP id r6mr7950011wbu.9.1286927915297; Tue,
 12 Oct 2010 16:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikFTdPeu1AcCnTM2_ZFg3_BWnwMZ+4bppcLFq=T@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=2R1tYqwGzuL1oLN448q-aB3BHEcB4Z9h+5FBs@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>
	<4CB3576C.2000009@lojban.org>
	<AANLkTinN-_hvwTXc8xuJy0HZB+Jdsv8ACYa28G72WBuj@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB48045.9050503@lojban.org>
	<AANLkTikWcnRDXowR_jtjOTKSGRoPEwgUjbttRGVt9CBf@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB4A74F.9040003@lojban.org>
	<AANLkTimTAUQNs_tDKjburZMCKyOX8gbgX56XzaescYT0@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikFTdPeu1AcCnTM2_ZFg3_BWnwMZ+4bppcLFq=T@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:58:34 -0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTinHhopOrjqSWy64v_ea=QPqzxomFE5cunakvL_D@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 74.125.82.44 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: 2294

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> wrote=
:
> Lojban has formalized even hesitation, for god's sake,
> so why couldn't it formalize conversations?

In different languages, different hesitation words/sounds are used, so
it would be strange if Lojban didn't have at least one of those.

If you want a rule for formal conversations, here is one: In a formal
conversation, every participant must begin their utterances with "ni'o
mi'e <their name>".

With that rule, the parser can easily follow who says what, if not
always to whom. All the valid texts can be concatenated into one big
valid text and we don't need any new cmavo.

But that's a rule for a particular "formal conversation" game that
Lojbanists could play. It is not a formal grammar rule for generating
valid Lojban.

> If we didn't have {i}, this would be a description of Lojban:
>
> =A0 Each person says one "sentence". =A0Each "sentence" is
> =A0 fed to the parser, which doesn't care about whether any
> =A0 other "sentences" are being said, in what order, etc.
> =A0 Pragmatics dictate that the sentences form a "conversation",
> =A0 and the "conversation" may even be divided into "texts", which
> =A0 are sequences of sentences from one speaker that together
> =A0 communicate a coherent "message".

No, that would be a description of a conversation in Lojban. That's
wouldn't be a description of Lojban.

Neither is my description of a conversation in Lojban as "an exchange
of texts" a description of Lojban.

Think of it this way, what is the formal grammar simulating, a speaker
or a community of speakers? Is it an algorithm for generating speech,
analogous to what a person can be said to have, or is it an algorithm
for generating conversations, analogous to what?

I guess it's a philosophical question. Do we think of language as the
thing that a speaker produces, or do we think of it as something
produced by a group?

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.