Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>]

2010/10/8 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> Starting an utterance with ".i" is no guarantee that your utterance
> won't be garbled if it's taken as continuation of what someone else is
> saying. As a trivial example, if the other speaker ended with "zo", it
> would just quote your ".i". But there are plenty of other cases that
> could absorb your ".i" too.

That's how I think of it as working.  I don't see how that's a
problem.  That could even make sense:

A: .i .u'u mi djisku zo
(confused pause)
B: .i

A wasn't sure what word they meant to say that they meant to say, so B
helpfully inserted that it was ".i".

It's my opinion and preference that a switch to a new speaker should
never automatically imply the beginning of a new text.  I would like
to think of all of the speakers in a conversation as collaborating on
a single text, with only rare exceptions (such as perhaps "ta'a").

I'm not even exactly sure what this idea of switching to a "new
speaker" means, in a Lojbanic context.  Two different people don't
have to be two separate speakers in Lojban, do they?  They can be
speaking jointly, as one referent of "mi".  Surely we must allow two
people to collaboratively speak a single text.  We shouldn't attempt
to grammatically enforce concepts of personal identity.

mi'e .telselkik. mu'o

-- 
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.