Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:2010/10/10 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:As far as I'm concerned, a conversation /is/ a text.You have said that, yes, but I have shown you examples of conversations, both from lojbab's lessons and fron CLL, that are not texts.By your definition.By the parser's definition. Who cares what you or I choose to call a "text" in an informal way. What matters is that both lojbab's lessons and CLL both give examples of conversations that do not parse as single whole entities.
And therefore according to the parser are invalid Lojban.You are taking the fact that they do not parse as evidence that they are multiple texts. But formally, if it doesn't parse, it is simply incorrect, even if pieces of it are correct separately.
After all, the following is ungrammatical: mi klama le zarci do klamaBut if one arbitrarily breaks it into two texts either before or after the "do", or before the "le", it is now grammatical.
But the parser won't break it into two texts. To the parser, it is simply ungrammatical. The human inputter has to do a break-up, according to informal rules. One such informal rule is that a new speaker is a new text. But that is an informal rule of pragmatics, and not part of the definition of Lojban. The proposals, I think, are proposals to override the informal considerations of pragmatics. I don't know if this is a good idea unless we codify the rules of Lojban pragmatics. But I'm willing to consider the possibility.
lojbab -- 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.