Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/8 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>
>> If the second line is by a second person, it's like a new text. It
>> doesn't have to be taken as one single text.
>
> I don't think it /has/ to. I merely think it /should/.

"Should" or "could"?

> For the following
> reason:
>
> lo verba cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. li'u .i lo vy mamta
> cu cusku lu mlatu li'u .i lo verba ku .e lo mamta cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo
> mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. mlatu li'u

"lo verba jo'u lo mamta". With ".e" it's false, since it expands to:

lo verba cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. mlatu li'u
.ije lo mamta cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. mlatu
li'u

Anyway, I'm lost as to the point you want to make here. Sure, one
possible interpretation of the mother's text is as completing the
child's text. So?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.