From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Nov 26 22:05:07 1995 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id WAA14034 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 22:05:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199511270305.WAA14034@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 8D01C07D ; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 22:54:06 -0400 Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:52:02 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: sei To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Status: OR Chris: > The "I" comes from the presumption that attitudinals deal with the speaker's > attitude towards the subject matter. But {sei} is an indicator, not an attitudinal. (Don't ask me what's the difference because I don't know yet. I'm defending this use of {sei} because I find it extremely useful.) > For example, {vofli .ui} means that > the speaker is pleased about something flying, not that it's a happy kind of > flying. I agree. > It's more like {vofli co se gleki mi} than {gleki vofli}. Ok, no problem with that. > Similarly, then, > {cusku sei krefu} should be more like {cusku co se krefu mi} than > {krefu cusku}. {mi krefu} is not very meaningful: "I am a repetition of some event". It does not mean "I say again". > If you want it to refer to something other than the speaker, you should fill > in the x1 with something else to override the {mi} default. e.g. {le nanmu > cu klama le zarci sei la noras. cusku} I refuse to accept that {sei} has a {mi} default for its selbri. An empty slot there should be filled by context as is the usual case. If the selbri needs a person as the x1, then I might agree that "I" may be a probable choice, although one of the sumti of the main bridi might also be possible, but in the case of {krefu} {mi} doesn't make any sense at all. la goran cusku di'e > .i mi pu'inai djuno le jai ta'i pilno zo sei i djuno du'u ta'i makau pilno zo sei [Using {le jai ta'i pilno} instead of {le du'u ta'i makau} is the same mistake as using {le jei} instead of {le du'u xukau}. The x2 of {djuno} has to be a proposition. It can't be a tadji or a namcu.] > lu sei se krefu li'u selsmu > la'ezo ke'u vau xunai i na go'i i zo krefu zo ke'u na ckini lo sampu >.i mi na djuno fi lu sei krefu li'u .i pe'i > lu sei broda li'u simsa .ei lu to dei broda toi .i pei i pe'i su'oroi lu to la'e dei broda toi li'u i ku'i na kampu javni co'o mi'e xorxes