Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:52 PM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
>
> We already have plenty of cmavo for separation; what we need, then, is
> a cmavo for explicit continuation.  I expect that would be a UI,
> grammatically speaking, or just possibly another member of selma'o I.

When And proposed such a cmavo, I suggested selma'o BAhE. Selma'o I
wouldn't usually work, because you can't grammatically continue "mi
klama lo" with selma'o I, for example.

If it's an existing selma'o, then either UI or BAhE are the best
choices, I think. Even they will fail if the first speaker ends with
ZO or ZEI though, because you wouldn't be able to complete with what
you really want to complete. You would need to use some additional
trick with SI.

Since this is really a meta-instruction to the parser, it has to mean
something like "do not attempt to parse what follows on its own,
remove this word, attach what follows to whatever you had before, and
parse as one". But we can't really add that to the formal grammar, so
I say leave it to pragmatics what chunk of input should be treated as
the full text to parse, whether it involves a single voice (as usual)
or more than one voice (as can happen sometimes).

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.