From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 20 18:06:38 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I1B87-0003qL-Fk for bpfk-announce-real@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:06:36 -0700 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.247]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I1B7l-0003pm-AE for bpfk-announce@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:06:29 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b21so104909ana for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:06:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=sOfhBq7sr2uIQg2oa3IvWSxf9RDx+vKTJCwVNZROO911lxShB6h+vx6txfb1gpsckgZJpHQl/HH/N9bHoDtj+pq6IJMe8VmI4O9YphnuvUvf7OHBf9sIJZ/GWGPM4gxLfjsIcyHiZXOfloCByaeXgrdGDRH7SHWigIuowpemIG0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Y9W4ZvkuIvgckWFHPQVtEUcAeQZ2KpHto2UqMWNhDdv65qKL9uLLdmYivFFi3gUnltMyFKeJg9occcGRf1AnXLfupLygv7JEdlEUzdagCIbckhjmbRH/26tXR40EVh8pXxCG/CLlnV49ey5WsKeDiPgKGGBza1kAHzPyaJBx9As= Received: by 10.100.123.9 with SMTP id v9mr786886anc.1182387971943; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.42.17 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560706201806i521404fw4162906a831f72f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:06:11 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: Current checkpoint In-Reply-To: <521646.38608.qm@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560706191850tff5ef3ax9b6ba8275a277969@mail.gmail.com> <521646.38608.qm@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 154 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce On 6/19/07, John E Clifford wrote: > 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 think it's true that the sei-clause will not affect the truth of the container clause. Since the sei-clause is metalinguistic, the container clause has no possible way to access it. But in the other direction, there does seem to be a connection, because the sei-clause will normally be precisely about the container utterance. An obvious case is Athlestan's {sei dei jetnu} which will be true just in case the container clause is true. mu'o mi'e xorxes