Re: [bpfk] Re: {.i} and {ni'o}, continuation or new jufra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> Here's how I see it:
>
>  {fa'ai}: Explicitly opens a new text.
>  {fa'ei}: Explicitly opens an existing text for appending.
>  {fa'o}: Explicitly closes the current text.

The problem is that the grammar has no access to anything like
"existing texts" that can be "opened", unless you are talking of a
completely different paradigm than the YACC/BNF/PEG formal grammars.
All texts that have been absorbed by the "text" rule are done and
dealt with, there is no reopening of them.


> The parameter to {fa'ei} should be a sumti whose referent
> points the reader (whether human or machine) to the text
> being appended to.  I expect that the sumti would usually
> refer to the previous speaker.  The parameter is either
> optional or you have to use {zo'e} if you want to be vague.

The grammar has no access to the referents of sumti, so you seem to be
talking about a human interpreter here.

> The word stream following {fa'ei} is not a text in itself and
> thus cannot be parsed on its own.  You have to find the
> existing text first, append to that, and then reparse.

Will the "existing text" not allowed to be a "project of a text" then?
Is it not possible to append to the non-text "mi klama lo"?

> I don't know what happens to pronouns like {mi} and {do}
> when one speaker appends to another speaker's text.

I would say that's the least of our problems, at this stage.

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.