2010/10/10 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is where the misunderstanding lies. I'm not talking about treating
> everything everyone says as though a single speaker said the entirety. I'm
> talking about whether or not to treat something said by one person and
> something said by another person as a single jufra, which means to me, the
> bit between two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s.
A: .i ie pei xamgu
B: nai .i na xamgu
Okay, two questions.
1) What does nai by itself even mean? and
2) Has anyone, ever, used nai in that way in conversation, as opposed to as an example of "something that causes this to break"?
The bit between the two consecutive, non-quoted [I]'s is not
grammatical. In at least that one example B's text must be taken as a
separate text.
> {.i lo broda cu brode lu .i broda lo brodi li'u .i li'o} is a sinlge jufra
> followed by one or more omitted jufra, as indicated by {li'o}.
Syntactically, "li'o" is not a jufra, it just attaches to ".i", but
I'm not sure how this has to do with anything anyway.
Hence my use of the word "indicated", which is a synonym for "symbolized".
> {la.alis.} is a single text. It is composed of a large multitude of jufra.
Yes course, with a single speaker/author, Lewis Carrol.
(Strictly speaking, it won't completely parse with the current
grammar, but the breaking points are very few. In principle it could
have been a single text, yes. It is not a conversation where texts are
exchanged between two or more peoiple.)
Neither of those points seem to have any relevance to this discussion. I was merely providing an example of what I consider the difference between a jufra = sentence and a text to be.
> These are not the same things.
I really don't know what you're saying with that. We are considering
conversations, i.e. (in my understanding) exchange of texts between
different speakers, not something like a book which is one long text
by one speaker/author.
mu'o mi'e xorxes