On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Robert LeChevalier <
lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> The problem I thought was being discussed was how to identify something as
> syntactically part of someone else's text.
You seemed to be arguing that that was the case by default, and you
needed a FAhO to break that default, which is contrary to everything I
have ever learned about Lojban.
Let me put it this way:
A: (something that parses correctly on its own)
B: (something that parses correctly on its own)
My default assumption is that what A said is one text, and what B said
is another text. In some special cases, B may be adding something to
A's text, but normally they are just responding to A's text with their
own new text.
That's the Lojban I have learned starting from your lessons. Is that
not your current understanding too?
mu'o mi'e xorxes