[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bpfk-announce] Re: Current checkpoint



--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/07, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would define it as
> >
> > sei marks a bridi which expresses a claim at the metalinguistic level
> > about the utterance in which the sei clause is embedded.  Such a claim
> > usually is information about the circumstances under which the utterance
> > was made, which could include identification of the speaker/author, the
> > circumstances under which the speaker/author expressed the utterance, or
> > some discursive relation (cf selma'o UI discursives) or emotional state
> > (cf selma'o UI attitudinals) of the speaker/author.
> 
> OK, it seems to be an expanded version of what we have now.
> 
> I prefer to reserve "the speaker" for the speaker of the sei-clause,
> which is what we are defining, rather than for the original speaker of
> the clause in which the sei-clause is embedded, which usually will be
> the same speaker of the sei-clause, but may not be in the case of
> quotations.
> 
> In cases where quotes are not involved, the speaker of the outer clause
> is the same speaker of the sei-clause. The example given is like that:
> 
>   .i ku'i fe'e mo'a roi trene sei mi zo roi kelci pilno
>   But there are trains in too few places (to use "roi" playfully).
> 
> The sei clause is a metalinguistic claim about the outer clause, but
> the speaker is commenting on their own clause. This would be the
> basic case.
> 
> The identification of the original speaker of the outer clause or the
> circumstances in which that outer utterance was produced would be a
> special use of {sei} within a quoted text. It is a specific type of comment
> on that quoted clause.
> 
> > The truth value of the metalinguistic bridi is distinct from that of the
> > utterance in which it is embedded (i.e. it is possible for the SEI
> > clause to be false while the bridi it is embedded in is true).
> 
> Given two bridi, it is always the case that one can be true while the
> other is false, so I'm not sure how this is special about sei-bridi.

The point, I think, is that, while the whole looks like a compound sentence, in which the truth of
one component may affect tht truth of the whole, here there is no whole in that sense. That is,
the two claims are independent and their combination does not make a new entity (more than any two
successive sentences) whoses truth is somehow related to the "parts." So a contrast with various
attitudinals and logical connectives and what not.   This is merely cutting off any implication of
similarity to some of the other things around in this area of the grammar.  I think.
> > --------------
> > I would suggest that someone look at and use (possibly needing
> > corrections of vocabulary) at Athelstan's translation of Saki's _Open
> > Window_ which I believe was the text that originally required the
> > existence of SEI.  IIRC, there is a lot of conversation in the story,
> > and there are several examples of embedded information in the quotes,
> > about the speaker's actions or expressions while saying whatever was
> > being said.
> 
> It's in ju'i lobypli 10, I'll take a look.
> 
> > The other use of SEI, IIRC (I think this is se'i) , is for editorial
> > correction - used when editorially inserting a paraphrase or a "sic"
> > comment in a quoted text and setting that comment apart from the text in
> > which it appears.
> 
> I think you are thinking of {to'i}, in TO. {se'i} is a UI for self-directed.
> The only other member of SEI is {ti'o}.
> 
> > Note that normal usage of SEI inside a quotation also uses "sa'a" so as
> > to mark that the SEI clause itself should be considered "invisible".
> 
> "Normal" in what sense? Nobody seems to use it like that.
> 
> > This was concocted for the rare case of quoting a text which has an
> > embedded SEI clause in it, which clause is itself part of the quote, and
> > not a comment on the quote.
> 
> But requiring {sa'a} for the frequent case, and no {sa'a} for the rare case
> is anti-Zipfean. It is better to indicate that the sei is part of the
> quote in the
> rare cases when it is. Perhaps with {sei sa'anai}. (Athelstan doesn't seem
> to use sa'a, from a quick look.) {sei sa'a} would not be wrong, of course,
> but it shouldn't be required.
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
> 
> 
> 
>