On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Daniel Brockman
<dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a very typical example of someone trying to "standardize" an
aspect of the language that obviously is very context-dependent. This
is impossible and the only effect is to generate endless flame wars.
Jorge suggested a workable solution several messages ago: use a cmavo
to explicitly distinguish between the two candidate interpretations
when necessary. This is the only practical way to avoid ambiguity. It
also adds flexibility to the language in a very lojbanic way: suddenly
it supports both isolating yourself from previous speakers and
continuing other utterances (something which, by the way, is very rare
in practice).
Most importantly, this leaves the unmarked forms context-dependent,
which means nobody needs to fight over what these extremely common
expressions "actually" mean: it's simply up to context. You only have
to use the explicit marker in unusual cases, or when extreme
unambiguity is needed.
That's fine by me, but the actual cmavo itself was never named, and trying to find what that cmavo is based on it's definition is an extremely difficult task.