Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> Nora and I have been reading along in this thread now, and I think we
> understand what the issue is, and see one ramification that has not been
> mentioned.  She mentioned in IRC where there may be several conversations
> going on at once.  I wish to reply to someone effectively continuing the
> "text" that is comprised by the various exchanges in the conversation.

The normal way would be to start your own text and address it to the
person whose text you are replying to. Why is it necessary, or even
desirable, to include your text as a part of their text?

A conversation consists of an exchange of texts, it does not consist
of a single text. Forcing the whole conversation into a single text
makes little sense. In fact when we quote a text with lu...li'u we
normally quote the text produced by one speaker. A text normally has a
speaker and an audience. Those are the referents of "mi" and "do" as
used in the text. The speaker may occasionally be a plurality, but it
still counts as one producer of text, and all the words of the text
count as coming from them. That's what the place structure of "cusku"
tells us, doesn't it? The speaker, the text, the audience. It's not
the participants of a conversation and some text they all weave
together,

>  Clearly such an explicit continuation needs to be a vocative (selma'o COI).
>  Only when there is one single other
> "speaker" that could be continued would it not need to be a vocative.

The normal thing would be to use "doi", and in fact that is how it is
often done in IRC.

> If none of them are quite what is wanted, I will admit that I am more
> amenable to adding cmavo to the COI selma'o than probably any other,
> especially if they are protocol-related as this is, because we knew from the
> beginning that we had not covered all conversation protocol issues.

The proposed "di'ai" cannot be added to any selma'o, because it is a
meta-syntactic indication to the pre-parser to merge two texts into
one before parsing, it is not something that can be part of the formal
grammar. It has to be processed before you feed the input to the
parser, indeed as part of deciding what to feed to the parser.

> The other observation is that whatever we are trying for is metalinguistic
> in nature, and thus can probably be expressed using SEI.

Not really. SEI is meta-semantic, but what some people are asking for
is meta-syntactic, which is not somethiing SEI can handle.

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.