Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>]

2010/10/9 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> Okay, that idea doesn't really work. The only other idea I can think of is
>> "li'o .ie" - "di'ai si .ienai li'o"
>
> That does mean that di'ai has to remain invisible to si, of course.

Either way it will be unintuitive sometimes. That's the problem of
using words for metalinguistic purposes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

I'd say that's a good enough solution for the problem of explicitly stating whether one is continuing another's jufra or not. Considering how often a person would want to be explicit - which I would guess is mutce rirci - the few cases in which it would be unintuitive are, to misuse a phrase, statistically irrelevant.

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

-- 
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.