Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>]

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

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?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

The disadvantage is that my human brain has to mentally insert the elided {.i}. Not being a stupid machine, I am able to intuitively determine whether a person is continuing another persons text or merely not bothering to start with {.i} based on context and the content of the two or more persons' speeches. Because the practice of eliding the intial {.i} is /ambiguous/, I don't do it myself.

The advantage is, it is both easy and possible to continue another person's jufra by the simple method of /not/ beginning your speech with {.i}.

-- 
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.