Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> wrote:
> I think I see what you mean.
>
> You are saying that a "conversation" is not the only kind
> of "meta-textual" Lojban objects that exist or can exist.
>
> Another simple example could be a Lojban "book".
>
> Or how about a Lojban "twitter feed" or "mailing list"?
>
> A "stream of consciousness"?
>
> A "to-do list"?
>
> A "contract"?
>
> I agree.  None of these are exactly "conversations", yet
> they are certainly "Lojban objects".  I feel like I could easily
> produce any number of examples.
>
> Essentially, Jorge is asking us to stop trying to formalize
> something that we do not understand and have not really
> thought through, or even really thought about at all.
>
> Right?

To tell you the truth, I'm a bit lost at this point as to what anyone
is arguing for. I am not opposed to new cmavo in general. If people
find something like "di'ai" useful, and it can be somehow incorporated
into the grammar, great. I still don't see how it would work, but I'm
not opposed to people trying to formalize it. What I don't like much
is it being proposed as some vague idea which will end up being a
headache worse than SA when trying to actually make it work in the
formal grammar.

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.