From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Jan 25 06:01:20 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 25 Jan 2003 14:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 31970 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2003 14:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jan 2003 14:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.114) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2003 14:01:20 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-53-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.53.49]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057FE47E9B for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 15:01:18 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] za'e "postnex" Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:01:17 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124203814.034d9ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lojbab: > At 04:46 PM 1/24/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > It may require some conventions (grammatical scope being undefined for > > > afterthought structures). But predefined conventions are good, even when > > > unofficial, in that they eliminate the need to glork from context. (this > > > is not to say that >I< will always approve of them) > > > >Unofficial conventions that conflict with official ones must not be > >countenanced except as part of an intentionally nonstandard dialect > > There are no official conventions on the interpretation of metalinguistic > bridi or parenthetical comments, on the scope of the di'u family of "text" > references, to my knowledge. So the official convention is that they are metalinguistic, parenthetical and subject to no further conventions. Unofficial conventions would conflict with that. > >The official interpretation of your examples is known, and should > >not be subverted by unofficial conventions. The place for establishing > >unofficial conventions in in the experimental cmavo, such as zo'au > > Or in metalinguistic comments expressed solely in Lojban Well, yes: you can add a metalinguistic comment to say "this text is not to be interpreted as Standard Lojban but instead according to a dialect that differs in the specified ways". Perhaps you could specify the ways by quoting an url to a webpage that defines them. It doesn't really matter how you keep the dialects distijnct, so long as you don't intercontaminate them. --And.