Jorge Llambías wrote:
And presumably you should begin every turn of your conversations with ".i mi'e .aionys." Otherwise, you can't use "mi" because in the text you are expanding it (not your own text) "mi" already refers to a different person. But I don't think I have noticed you doing that.
Semantics and not syntax. Lojban should not pretend to have unambigious semantics (regardless of how many speakers are involved). However, by convention, absent of explicit mi'e, the referent of "mi" is the speaker, and is not determined by the text that it is part of. ("Text" being a syntactic and not a semantic concept).
The problem I thought was being discussed was how to identify something as syntactically part of someone else's text. What it "means" (what all the variables refer to) is a separate problem that is probably insoluble.
(In the pre-xorlo language, what I mean by "le broda" and what you mean by "le broda" might two completely independent things whether they are part of one text or not. My mind is not your mind, and what I have in mind almost certainly is NOT the exact same concept as what you have in mind, though we might use the same description "le broda" to describe the same referent. I have no idea what xorlo does to this (and probably don't want to try to know it %^).)
lojbab -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.