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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that {.i} is "optional" at the beginning of a new
> text. "Optional" in that context, means the same thing to me as elidable.

For some (admittedly rare) texts you don't have the option of adding
".i" nor "ni'o" at the beginning. For example ".aionys." is a valid
text, ".i .aionys." is not. "nai" is a valid text, ".i nai." is not.
But I won't press this point because I would want both of those to be
valid.

In any case, the optionality of initial ".i" is a different thing from
the elidable terminators. The elidable terminators in a sense can be
said to be there even when not explicit, the optional ".i/ni'o" is not
really there in the same sense.

>> So you are willing to give up the useful property of texts of having a
>> speaker and an audience, for the rare occasions when someone wants to
>> complete someone else's sentences?
>
> I don't agree that those properties are "given up".

Well, a text formed from a concatenated string of conversational texts
is no longer a se cusku with a well defined cusku and a well defined
te cusku.

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.