2010/10/12 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllamb= ias@gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have an easy fix for that specific example. I believe I've menti= oned it
> before.
>
> Preface your speech with {.i}.

But that's my point, if you make ".i" obligatory before= every
utterance, you are changing the language. (And the formal grammar will
still not be able to identify where one speaker ends and another
begins, so it still cannot generate a conversation from the input.)

So? Why does the grammar need to know who the speaker is?= It doesn't know now, and it doesn't seem important to me in the sl= ightest. What matters is that the separate jufra are unambiguously separate= jufra. And I don't see making {.i} "obligatory" is changing = the language - in my mind, it already is, but due to the intuitiveness and = laziness of humans, we are able to omit it, knowing that the audience's= mental parser will insert it where needed - something a machine can't = now do.

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Robert LeC= hevalier <lojbab@= lojban.org> wrote:
"Back in the day"..., we thought that each exchange in formal Lo= jban=20 conversation would generally involve starting with .i or ni'o....

lojbab

Apparently my opinion on the matter dates back = some time, as well.

If all you are saying is that using ".i" makes for a certain kind= of
exchanges to be mushable into one long text and the result is most
often still grammatical and (somewhat) similar to what was intended by
the speakers, then sure, that's true.

Okay. Enough= about text. Screw the whole concept of text. I am talking about individual= jufra. SENTENCES. Specifically, how to unambiguously determine, without re= sorting to "pragmatics", whether or not {lo zarci}, to use your o= ft-repeated example, is a part of the jufra {do klama ma}, or if it is a ne= w jufra.

But tha= t has nothing to do with
the formal grammar, it's just one style that you prefer, because you happen to like conversations that can be mushed into a single text.
The style I proposed, starting every utterance with "ni'o mi'e= <name
of speaker>" is even more precise if you want that kind of precisio= n.

Yes. It is. And it will most likely = be used on those occasions that warrant it, such as when the referent of {m= i} is not obvious. Although I think that it should only be {ni'o mi'= ;e ...} when the speaker is beginning a new subject.
=A0

> Then it becomes
>
> A: .i do klama ma
> B: .i lo zarci
>
> Amazingly, this rule tells you how to separate the single input "= .i do klama
> ma .i lo zarci" into the two strings produced by A and B,

No, there is no way for the formal grammar to tell it came from two different speakers, unless you also make it a rule that a speaker can
only produce one bridi at a time.

Why does it matt= er how many speakers were involved? It's obviously {do klama ma} and {l= o zarci}, not {do klama ma lo zarci}, which is what is important, is it not= ?
=A0

> isn't based on any
> heuristics or voice recognition, and is already part of the formal gra= mmar!
> Huzzah!
>
> Which is yet another reason why I frown on the practice of /not/ begin= ning
> one's speech with one of {.i}, {ni'o}, or {no'i}, and .loj= bab. apparently is
> in agreement with me.

But why don't you also frown on the practice of not beginning wit= h ".i
mi'e <name>". You are not consistent in your frowning.

mu'o mi'e xorxes