Re: [bpfk] {.i} and {ni'o}, continuation or new jufra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> This thread is so completely unrelated to BPFK work that I feel we really
> ought to move it to a new thread by now.

It is related in as much as the BPFK's task is to define the language,
and there seems to be a significant discrepancy in the way the
language is being understood.

> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/10/10 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> A:  (something that parses correctly on its own)
>>> B:  (something that parses correctly on its own)
>>>
>>> My default assumption is that what A said is one text, and what B said
>>> is another text. In some special cases, B may be adding something to
>>> A's text, but normally they are just responding to A's text with their
>>> own new text.
>>
>> If what B says is parsable, but would cause jbofi'e to say "selbri may be
>> missing on line x column x", then I would probably assume that it is a
>> continuation.

But you do understand that that is contrary to the traditional
understanding, right?

See for example:
http://dag.github.com/cll/19/5/

<<
5.3)   do klama ma
       You go-to [what sumti?]
       Where are you going?

The answer is a simple sumti:

5.4)   le zarci
       The store.
>>

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.