Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
>> I see the disadvantages (you lose the information that a text has a
>> speaker which is referred to as "mi" in the text and an audience which
>> is referred to as "do" in the text), but I still can't see the
>> advantages. What are the advantages of treating the whole conversation
>> as one text?
>
> Syntactically, only that it takes one pass through the parser rather than
> many.

Except when the parse of the full thing fails, in which case you still
have to try each piece again to see if the individual pieces parse,
right? Or are you saying that when the individual pieces parse but the
concatenation fails, the conversation as a whole fails?

Do you no longer agree with what you taught in your lessons?

> Pragmatically, while "mi" and "do" change their meanings with time (as do
> ri, ra, di'u etc), most referents hold their value regardless of time,
> speaker, etc.  Any semantic analysis has to treat them as a single text.
>  Otherwise, somewhat-ambiguous semantics become unintelligible semantics.

Of course any semantic analysis needs to take context into account,
and the preceding text is most definitely part of the context of a
given text.

I'm still not seeing the advantage of treating a conversation
syntactically as a single text. It doesn't always work, so is your
rule: "if you can blend everything into one text, do it, otherwise
treat each part as a separate text"? Or what?

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.