Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOEKkQtSd+TpVhgbx4tWQCrmfOfOUMRkxS=j_rpeLcv0WSOxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3729f7bd-3aa6-499c-9a20-4b3d040d3ad8@googlegroups.com>
 <CA+gZtg+Z5G30sNjBiOtOxFwE5Js=4uwM3T9Sd2MftKHxjoG88Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ8VDVOxKYbUoRCPDoLPpMxxWFobVQ=j0wStj=JDobXzwYS_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <b22c720e-ccb3-43af-ad2c-0db522e5844a@googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDWvOUw7r2RFOhuLmF0cssAE5LEUUKJ1QtJOUBsKzroi9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe420003-35a6-45b3-a9cd-e2c428b979ea@googlegroups.com> <CAKOEKkQtSd+TpVhgbx4tWQCrmfOfOUMRkxS=j_rpeLcv0WSOxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:04:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDXC4BtasPubD2sgGwJmvUhoq=WVL1iqYVkkA1Mjy=EsVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A bug in the CLL 7.6 example 6.14).
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294e564e884304df9b752b
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--089e01294e564e884304df9b752b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 20 June 2013 11:58, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

>   I believe in in none of those cases does nei or no'a "work".  I don't
> consider that sei-se'u constructions can "see" the sentence they are
> talking about it.  It would make about as much sense as:
> lo mamta cusku lu vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci li'u
> and claiming that "vo'a" refers to "lo mamta" (contrariwise, "lo mamta
> cusku lo se du'u  vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci" does work)
>               --gejyspa
>
>
>
CLL 19:12 contradicts you on this point:

Since a discursive utterance is working at a =93higher=94 level of abstract=
ion
than a non-discursive utterance, a non-discursive utterance cannot refer to
a discursive utterance. Specifically, the various back-counting,
reciprocal, and reflexive constructs in selma'o KOhA ignore the utterances
at =93higher=94 metalinguistic levels in determining their referent. It is
possible, and sometimes necessary, to refer to lower metalinguistic levels.
For example, the English =93he said=94 in a conversation is metalinguistic.=
 For
this purpose, quotations are considered to be at a lower metalinguistic
level than the surrounding context (a quoted text cannot refer to the
statements of the one who quotes it), whereas parenthetical remarks are
considered to be at a higher level than the context.

Thus, it is possible from within a "higher" context to refer to the
contents of a "lower" context. This is why it is possible to refer to the
contents of a lu-quote, but not for its contents to refer to the bridi in
which that lu-quote is a sumti. Likewise, a sei-clause can use ri and other
anaphoric devices to refer to what is outside it, because what is outside
it is on a "lower" level.

Metalinguistic "height" according to CLL:
SEI..SEhU, TO..TOI > ordinary bridi > lu-quotes

That being said, I say that {nei} used in a sei-clause refers to the bridi
of the sei-clause. This is consistent with (almost) every other use of nei.
To refer to the bridi outside the sei-clause {no'a} is required.

.i mi'e la tsnai mu'o

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--089e01294e564e884304df9b752b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On 20 June 2013 11:58, Michael Turniansky <span dir=3D"ltr=
">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mturniansky@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mturniansk=
y@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">=A0 I believe in in none of those cases d=
oes nei or no&#39;a &quot;work&quot;. =A0I don&#39;t consider that sei-se&#=
39;u constructions can &quot;see&quot; the sentence they are talking about =
it. =A0It would make about as much sense as:<div>


lo mamta cusku lu vo&#39;a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci li&#39;u=A0</div><div=
>and claiming that &quot;vo&#39;a&quot; refers to &quot;lo mamta&quot; (con=
trariwise, &quot;lo mamta cusku lo se du&#39;u =A0vo&#39;a nitcu lo nu klam=
a lo zarci&quot; does work)</div>


<div>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --gejyspa</div><div><br></div></div><div c=
lass=3D""><div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div></di=
v></blockquote><div><br></div><div>CLL 19:12 contradicts you on this point:=
</div><div><br>

</div><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size=
:medium;text-indent:16px">Since a discursive utterance is working at a =93h=
igher=94 level of abstraction than a non-discursive utterance, a non-discur=
sive utterance cannot refer to a discursive utterance. Specifically, the va=
rious back-counting, reciprocal, and reflexive constructs in selma&#39;o KO=
hA ignore the utterances at =93higher=94 metalinguistic levels in determini=
ng their referent. It is possible, and sometimes necessary, to refer to low=
er metalinguistic levels. For example, the English =93he said=94 in a conve=
rsation is metalinguistic. For this purpose, quotations are considered to b=
e at a lower metalinguistic level than the surrounding context (a quoted te=
xt cannot refer to the statements of the one who quotes it), whereas parent=
hetical remarks are considered to be at a higher level than the context.</s=
pan></div>

<div><br></div><div>Thus, it is possible from within a &quot;higher&quot; c=
ontext to refer to the contents of a &quot;lower&quot; context. This is why=
 it is possible to refer to the contents of a lu-quote, but not for its con=
tents to refer to the bridi in which that lu-quote is a sumti. Likewise, a =
sei-clause can use ri and other anaphoric devices to refer to what is outsi=
de it, because what is outside it is on a &quot;lower&quot; level.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Metalinguistic &quot;height&quot; according to CLL:<br>=
SEI..SEhU, TO..TOI &gt; ordinary bridi &gt; lu-quotes</div><div><br></div><=
div>That being said, I say that {nei} used in a sei-clause refers to the br=
idi of the sei-clause. This is consistent with (almost) every other use of =
nei. To refer to the bridi outside the sei-clause {no&#39;a} is required.</=
div>

<div><br></div><div>.i mi&#39;e la tsnai mu&#39;o</div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--089e01294e564e884304df9b752b--