On 24 December 2012 12:42, la gleki <= span dir=3D"ltr"><gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">

On Monday, December 24, 2012 9:05:53 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
On 24 December 2012 11:54, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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 disapprove= of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that one ca= n't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spoken, unle= ss {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

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.

How can you distinguish betwee= n

{do cusku lu do klama mi li'u}
and &nb= sp;
{do cusku lo nu do klama mi}
using {sei}?

That's a non-problem,= because fasnu1 (assuming nu produces a fasnu1) can't be cusku2.

= Distinguishing between sedu'u and lu is a bit more subtle, and I've seen va= riant uses of sei for this. The CLL's example dialogue about some people ge= tting announcing a future marriage uses sei on the top level, without lu, b= ut also uses "direct anaphora", which means {lu} is being indirectly used.<= /div>

e.g. {.i mi'a ba spesimbi'o doi rodo sei la bab cusku} = would imply lu, because the anaphora are those that Bob himself would be us= ing.

-> {.i la bab cusku lu mi'a ba spesimbi'o doi rodo}

The contrary usage would use "indirect anaphora" and wo= uld imply sedu'u:

e.g. {.i la bab joi lo spenu'e c= u spesimbi'o sei la bab cusku be fi loi ro zvati be lo kafybarja}

-> {.i la bab cusku lo sedu'u by joi lo spenu'e cu spesimbi'o kei l= oi ro zvati be lo kafybarja}

The doi in this case,= being a free modifier, can't be carried into the sedu'u correctly, but see= ing as COI too can be transformed into sei-clauses, we can move it to the o= uter bridi.

Deciding which is correct would simply require an autho= ritative decision to be made, but both at this rate are possibilities, and = as it stands, there is some inconsistency in usage.

<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

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>

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

Now such proposal allow= s us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {lu k= o klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 sy= llables)

gleki's solution: {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 above, = where's the {je} ? What selbri is it connecting?

Oh sorry. The rule is {li'u je lu} annihilate= s itself. The order is important.

Okay... it's good to know that we're= using the experimental JA-works-on-sumti proposal. Equally, {lo broda je l= o brode} is not equal to {lo broda je broda}; the former causes distributio= n by virtue of the logical connection. {lu li'o li'u je lu li'o li'u} does = not annihilate itself because it's a logical connective (unless your je is = not sugar for .e, in which case I don't at all follow what you're trying to= say.)

So, if I get this right, you're saying two different th= ings:

#1 {.i lu broda li'u selsku mi fa lu .ije brode li'u} ->= {.i lu broda li'u je lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi} -/> {.i lu broda li'= u selsku mi .ije lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi}

#2 {.i lo barda fa lo gerku cu xunre} -> {.i lo barda je gerku cu x= unre}

You do realize that these are very different= things: in the first you get a pseudo-logical connective that doesn't expa= nd into two bridi and in the second you a tanru-internal logical connective= .

Again, this is inconsistent.

doi la tsani, let's start from the beginning.

D= o you believe that

{lu broda sei sa'a ko'a cusku se'u lo brode li= 'u} is a right way of splitting the quotation {lu broda lo brode li'u se cu= sku ko'a}?

In my opinion everything is quoted, eve= n {sa'a} otherwise how can we quote {sa'a}?

My nex= t replies will depend on your answer.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/U_= O0AxQ1YUwJ.
=20 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.
------=_Part_13_28456281.1356442140482--