Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, we need SOME way to wedge a conversation into a text.
> Otherwise how can we talk about conversations?

We can already talk about conversations (in the non-formal sense, a
conversation as an event) with the current grammar.

Talking about an instance of the proposed formal construct
"conversation" is a different issue. Even if "lu...li'u" couldn't
quote that construct, we could still talk about it with for example
"lu ... li'u ce'o lu ... li'u ce'o lu ... li'u".

But I will leave the specification of the proposal to the proponents.
Personally, I think that the idea of the formal grammar as a generator
of conversations, rather than as a generator of a speaker's speech, is
too bizarre. (But then I also think that even the handling of
paragraphing with the syntax is slightly bizarre, so ...)

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.