{sei ... se'u} inside =A0{lu ...li'u} must be a part = of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate= quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks th= at this is wrong.

IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.

1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki= ~=3D .ui})
2. As an alternative to moving= the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}=3D{mi jinvi = lo du'u do melbi})

3. To translate partitioned quotations.

All of these meanings are actually the same.= In every case, it's "meaning #2".

{.i do melbi sei mi cusku} -> {.i mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}=
{.i ui do cinba mi} -> {.i sei mi gleki do cinba mi} -> {.= i mi gleki lo nu do cinba mi}

Personally, I disapp= rove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that on= e can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spok= en, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

=A0

Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning = of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.<= /div>

Repl= acing any meanings of sei with another word is unnecessary because {sei} on= ly really has one meaning.

=A0
Proposal.
The same FA two times i= n a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.

{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}=3D{mi pu viska lo ba= rda je gerku}.

This system seems inco= nsistent: a sumti operation, namely the use of FA, causes a selbri effect.<= /div>
=A0

Needless to say that "= it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {k= o'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases w= ith adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.

Now such proposal allow= s us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {= lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li&#= 39;u} (25 syllables)

gleki's solution: =A0{lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la= alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)

As I mentioned =A0above, whe= re's the {je} ? What selbri is it connecting? Furthermore, if double-FA= should have some connective implication, it should certainly not be a logi= cal connective. I propose something far more vague, like {ju'e}.

=A0
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--bcaec53aece2e787b504d19c3672--