Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

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

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/8 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > My point is, if something said by a second person is always treated as
>> > separate text, how does the mother finish her child's sentence?
>>
>> How can we be 100% sure that she intends to do it? We can't. I think
>> And Rosta did propose a cmavo for indicating "continuation of previous
>> speaker's utterance" once. You might find it in the experimental cmavo
>> page.
>>
>> > And since Lojban is supposed to be umambiguous, it has to be one way or
>> > the
>> > other. Either a new speaker is always a new jufra, or only at the next
>> > {.i},
>> > which is my preferred reading. (Or listening.)
>>
>> A new speaker is by default a new text. Anything else is unreasonable,
>> since it makes your utterances dependent on things you may not have
>> control over.
>>
>> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> .i ganai da'aroi lonu ranji jufra cu pilno zo .i gi na go'i

What do you understand by "da'aroi lo nu ranji jufra"? It means
something like "all but once during the continuous sentence".

I was trying for "In all cases except those in which you are continuing the sentence".

Starting an utterance with ".i" is no guarantee that your utterance
won't be garbled if it's taken as continuation of what someone else is
saying. As a trivial example, if the other speaker ended with "zo", it
would just quote your ".i". But there are plenty of other cases that
could absorb your ".i" too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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.

.i lo nanmu cu cusku lu mi facki lodu'u zo'e
lo barja cu te klama

vs.

.i lo nanmu cu cuksu lu mi facki lodu'u zo'e
.i lo barja cu te klama

Not the best example, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head in which the {.i} is swallowed. I had a difficult enough time finding an example that parsed both with and without the second {.i}.