Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4e5a-0000CE-JS; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:24:15 -0700 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9sf2226345gxk.16 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:24:04 -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:received-spf:received:received:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=HCImolKYaI6mbQQZC8yk+dW/d6GI0RJ6XkGgBRG6GQY=; b=fqzL9JBNAK2c1Xuu+DAks4NxgapdxTgHugE/iTi2vggSqu9jseuLE3axmFlw9yC/4t CHDqqg0QBUZakPwZqNMHG0qR9mU2lx3XZ0U9dxSu5L3jYwFDg652aoSCDnTTI8lN7scg neHophpFRgAr99yuvkOJGPdbt74/Xd7QmdLVk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-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=ckPrrtDHOl6dwGMo0q/bu9TLmzE3WxzyCQih+DmMslic5vdqDhIUCmjgx0aQPoDTBS 4f3QJmcGOzHmKXGyibYhmnW9NRwV43YtRPirWuQpqDfoTpWaIrbJyNoaIZ8mSx9IyywX qxP66RTgtHvIHrbVBz5sJ0JES+AI/qhGCnAg4= Received: by 10.151.142.4 with SMTP id u4mr400196ybn.76.1286648637656; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:23:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.69.3 with SMTP id r3ls741760yba.3.p; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.215.8 with SMTP id n8mr961347ybg.28.1286648637339; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.108.11 with SMTP id p11mr1046168yhg.17.1286648379786; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.108.11 with SMTP id p11mr1046167yhg.17.1286648379767; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net (eastrmmtao102.cox.net [68.230.240.8]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id t74si1931398yhf.9.2010.10.09.11.19.39; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.8 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.8; Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20101009181941.VNBI5729.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:19:41 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id GiKe1f00K3Xcbvq02iKeYa; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:19:39 -0400 X-VR-Score: -130.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=zpAh8NT9SzMisnlzmt6xnbL/Bv7XoKhaPoxN5FSWxDQ= c=1 sm=1 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=IdtYKe3IdoEkMurU6bIA:9 a=NPRxSWTDA_HOJxRGRwcA:7 a=25EBCi0dpifnhZ6fREot2kzPtY0A:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=BKBYKOJuHqk2riFy:21 a=S14Lx4C0vqxUKoz5:21 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:19:37 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work References:

In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.8 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org 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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 5229 Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Stela Selckiku wrote= : >=20 >>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". >=20 >=20 > Of course that's one possible reading. It is you, the listener, who > decides which chunk of sound input you are going to treat as the text > to be parsed. You obviously can't take the whole history of sound > produced in the universe and treat that as a single piece of Lojban > text. And even if you restrict yourself to one room where you can hear > two simultaneous conversations, are you going to treat them both as a > single text mixing words from each conversation as they come to you? > No, you treat one chunk as one text and the other chunk as another > text. It's the same with two speakers participating in one > conversation. Sometimes they may complete each other's sentences, but > for the most part each produces their own text (which of course has > the other person's text as part of its context). >=20 > The problem is not that sometimes someone can complete someone else's > sentence. That's perfectly fine. The problem is if you take the > absolutist position that everything you say is necessarily a > continuation of what someone else has said before as part of the same > text. That just won't work. >=20 >=20 >>It's my opinion and preference that a switch to a new speaker should >>never automatically imply the beginning of a new text. >=20 >=20 > I agree. There's nothing automatic about it. It is often the case, but > you can't count on it being always the case. >=20 >=20 >> 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"). >=20 >=20 > "ta'a" is a free modifier, so it can be inserted pretty much anywhere > without breaking anything. >=20 >=20 >>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. >=20 >=20 > And I don't think anyone is suggesting that we do. What we shouldn't > do either is pretend that most conversations are not between two (or > more) different people. "mi" and "do" in most common cases have well > defined and distinct referents. >=20 > A: .i mi gleki > B: .i go'i ra'o >=20 > Obviously that's two texts, not one text ".i mi gleki .i go'i ra'o" > with the second part being a redundant repetition of the first. I'm not sure that I am understanding what the issue is in this=20 discussion. "Text" is mostly meaningful in Lojban grammar as a term=20 referring to parsible chunks of Lojban. Your conversation between A and=20 B is a valid single "text", simply because it can parse. ("Text" is=20 still ambiguous, because that which lies within a parenthetical or a=20 quote is also grammatically a "text", but my default usage is to refer=20 to the largest or highest-level chunk But in case it is relevant, I have not seen any mention of fa'o, the=20 reserved cmavo that explicitly indicates the end of a piece of text (in=20 the sense of the largest parsible unit), but which I believe is found in=20 no formal grammar and is almost never used. It was specifically=20 conceived for situations where one knows that what one is saying cannot=20 parse as a continuation of what has gone previously, but has been=20 superfluous in Lojban parsers which were designed to inherently assume a=20 single text. The most likely "real" use of fa'o to me has been when one gets into=20 some kind of nested parenthethetical and isn't sure how many and what=20 kind of terminators are needed to get out to the highest level. Perhaps no one talks about "fa'o" because as designed, it practically=20 cannot be talked about in Lojban, since its use has absolute=20 metalinguistic force. "zo fa'o" MAY be the only possible override (and=20 then only if we define it as such). Any actual unquoted use otherwise=20 inherently breaks off the text in which it is used without being part of=20 that text. lojbab --=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.