Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, if you remember, my pragmatic decision as to whether a new speaker = a
> > new text is determined by whether the new speaker begins with {.i} or
> > {ni'o}, i.e. it is a continuation if not, and a next text if so.,
>
>
> What does that buy you? What advantage do you see in treating the
> utterances produced by different speakers in a conversation as if they
> were a single text?
>
> 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.

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.

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.