Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I agree entirely.

We already have plenty of cmavo for separation; what we need, then, is
a cmavo for explicit continuation.  I expect that would be a UI,
grammatically speaking, or just possibly another member of selma'o I.

-- 
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.