Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:The problem I thought was being discussed was how to identify something as syntactically part of someone else's text.You seemed to be arguing that that was the case by default, and you needed a FAhO to break that default, which is contrary to everything I have ever learned about Lojban. Let me put it this way: A: (something that parses correctly on its own) B: (something that parses correctly on its own) My default assumption is that what A said is one text, and what B said is another text. In some special cases, B may be adding something to A's text, but normally they are just responding to A's text with their own new text. That's the Lojban I have learned starting from your lessons. Is that not your current understanding too?
It is my understanding that this is current usage. You have convinced me that even as early as the draft lessons, we omitted the .i. I have found examples in TLI Loglan where the same was done. On the other hand, I distinctly recall the issue coming up in the early days.
JL7 (1988) has a conversation in which each exchange has an explicitly marked as optionally omitted ".i" at the beginning. Look in the section "A Very Short Introduction to Lojban Grammar". It was understood that the continuation ".i" was there even if not explicit (there are other sample conversations in the same newsletter that do not have the explicit ".i", so I suspect that we just stopped teaching it because everyone (until now) understood that exchanges were continuations.
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.