Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd say that's a good enough solution for the problem of explicitly stating
> whether one is continuing another's jufra or not. Considering how often a
> person would want to be explicit - which I would guess is mutce rirci - the
> few cases in which it would be unintuitive are, to misuse a phrase,
> statistically irrelevant.

OK, but it should be clear that "di'ai" is metalanguage, it is not
part of the language, it's not a word that the parser will recognize.
The parser will recognize it as a cmavo form, so "zo di'ai" is fine to
talk about it, just like one can talk about any other undefined cmavo,
but it will not be recognized as anything meaningful to the 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.