Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sAJw6-0009acC; Sat, 13 May 95 19:21 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id C4013CF1 ; Sat, 13 May 1995 18:21:01 +0100 Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 12:23:01 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Questions X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1081 Lines: 32 > If you want to be explicit about it being a performative you can say > > "mi rapygau lenu mi ca'e ckire" > > IMO "ca'e" is a generic performative marker; not just "I define" as it is > glossed. A synonym for "sepi'o dei", or "hereby". Is that consistent with > the consensus? It sounds right, but I wouldn't use it in that position as a tag of {mi}. Rather mark the whole sentence: ca'e mi rapygau le nu mi ckire > >> Could I say > >> > >> mi ckire sei rapli > >> > > > >I don't really feel comfortable with {sei}. I don't fully understand it. > > I don't know I do either, but that is consistent with how I use it. I tend > to think of it as simply a way of attatching something to a sentence without > any precise logical relationship to the sentence. The problem (or maybe not) that I see is that inside a quotation, sei talks about the text, but here it talks about the action described by the text. Maybe it is not a problem, but Lojban tends to distinguish these two things carefully, and here we seem to be ignoring the distinction. Jorge