Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4V9D-0007JX-Av; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:30 -0700 Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40sf418972wyb.16 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:11 -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:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=WUTeyACnjN0ZWrL2VMEVKL+b5VE7LLY6eYL0HMrAZOw=; b=IH9bWMcFvj5liCGMs6aEw36dbuTvE/UR5QUWsNUILGp0k07Tfj3SgxX2bW1yOyBWBb 1TwOmcgvwHSIjIx2qfCYN00RriBejsmQpNRsXMw5SJXf/sZ9FmDUSO30iawiFxLtSYKZ XwYZDYz7S8zT/ypHz/zBWSv1u+xDmfKWVwpb4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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=S5dbobDxz0Uk/HFR62kDr6ndF1O2fF6egVZTObFJRd/Zr67tg6rOlLCby9L5gInP5a LrwA/dbkApOYhQ0bm8LA26GuS0Ji1Bs8PbxBeMTdHX6HzdmsWMNxrKrEwroViETfoCOj 5xHXtbTjL5dvb4adDTZsVX8BKr0wmrnclkeLc= Received: by 10.216.237.206 with SMTP id y56mr182003weq.27.1286614265700; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.242.202 with SMTP id i52ls754099wer.0.p; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.15.227 with SMTP id f77mr181267wef.3.1286614264562; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.15.227 with SMTP id f77mr181266wef.3.1286614264533; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (mail-ww0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id o31si267295wej.10.2010.10.09.01.51.03; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.45; Received: by mail-ww0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 36so1721121wwa.2 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.37.8 with SMTP id v8mr3334679wbd.37.1286614257317; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:50:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.138.81 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 01:50:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100903032539.GY5990@digitalkingdom.org> From: Stela Selckiku Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 04:50:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: selckiku@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=selckiku@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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1662 2010/10/8 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > > Starting an utterance with ".i" is no guarantee that your utterance > won't be garbled if it's taken as continuation of what someone else is > saying. As a trivial example, if the other speaker ended with "zo", it > would just quote your ".i". But there are plenty of other cases that > could absorb your ".i" too. That's how I think of it as working. I don't see how that's a problem. That could even make sense: A: .i .u'u mi djisku zo (confused pause) B: .i A wasn't sure what word they meant to say that they meant to say, so B helpfully inserted that it was ".i". It's my opinion and preference that a switch to a new speaker should never automatically imply the beginning of a new text. I would like to think of all of the speakers in a conversation as collaborating on a single text, with only rare exceptions (such as perhaps "ta'a"). I'm not even exactly sure what this idea of switching to a "new speaker" means, in a Lojbanic context. Two different people don't have to be two separate speakers in Lojban, do they? They can be speaking jointly, as one referent of "mi". Surely we must allow two people to collaboratively speak a single text. We shouldn't attempt to grammatically enforce concepts of personal identity. mi'e .telselkik. mu'o --=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.