Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>]

2010/10/8 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't think of any way to say this succintly, so please excuse any
> rambling. What I'm trying to get at is, unless the new speaker begins with
> {.i}, or by extension {ni'o} and related, the new speaker is to be taken as
> continuing the previous speaker's sentence. If, however, the new speaker
> does begin with {.i} or related, then /regardless/ of what the previous
> speaker said, it is a new sentence.

That would entail a huge change in the grammar. In fact I'm not sure
it's even doable, you are essentially giving a different grammar to I
and NIhO when they are the first word in a new voice than when they
are not the first word in a new voice.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

It is the only method I can think of that maintain unambiguity while preserving the ability to continue someone else's sentence. So unless someone has a better suggestion, it's either that or it is not possible to continue someone else's sentence, ever. The latter will cause all Lojbanic twins to hate you, btw. zo'o

-- 
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.