From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:58:59 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 15525 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1996 16:38:35 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 20 Dec 1996 16:38:35 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.164B762C@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:38:34 +0100 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:36:57 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: PLI: evidentials in reported speech X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199612191353.IAA29251@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Don Wiggins on Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:58:59 GMT) Content-Length: 3177 Lines: 76 Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:58:59 GMT >From: Don Wiggins > >cu'ula mark. tu'e >>As to pe'idaidai, it won't do what you want, I think. dai is not so >>mechanically defined. It just means that the emotion in question is felt >>more as "empathy" with someone else, and not the speaker. Who is that >>someone else? There's no clear answer. I often wish there were a simple >>way to say a UI really belongs to someone else >tu'u > >This seems to contradict what I think. > >"dai" is not mechanically defined, but I can certainly empathised that someone >else is empathising something. Hmm.... I can see that. So you'd use "pe'idaidai" to imply that the speaker empathizes that ko'a empathizes that fo'a opines.... I can see that could work. I thiought you were just using "dai" in some mechanical way to push the perceiver of a UI from person to person. It might get hard to keep track of, though. >So, > > 1) .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u pe'i fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci > 2) .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u pe'idai fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci > 3) .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u pe'idaidai fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci > >For kris and I, 1 indicates that it is my opinion what ko'a said. >2 indicates that it was originally ko'a's opinion that she was going to the >market. 3 indicates that the opinion given by ko'a was someone else's. >This is under the proviso that "dai" is not definite and it could be >anyone else's opinion, but the most likely interpretation is given. > >For .and and mark, the evidential can never be sub-ordinated so that the only >way to indicate ko'a opinion is by predication such as: > > 4) .i ko'a jinvi cusku lesedu'u fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci Hold on! First of all, I never commented on using du'u. For me ko'a cusku lu pe'i fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci li'u IS subordinating the UI, and the speaker is reporting that the pe'i was expressed by ko'a, and thus "fo'a ca'o klama" is in ko'a's opinion. And maintains (as I understand it) that UI's are never quoted, and I maintain that lu/li'u quotes everything but sa'a. So enclosing the UI in lu/li'u and putting the quote in the mouth of someone else is saying that that someone else expressed the emotion in question. Regarding du'u, I believe that does NOT quote UI's, and thus they are still said by the speaker. So it looks to me like I would agree with the interpretations you have for 1-3 as belonging to you and kris. In the first case, it's the your opinion about what's said, in the second, you are empathizing someone else's opining (presumably ko'a's, though it's not necessarily unambiguous), and in (3) you're empathizing that someone else (probably ko'a) is empathizing that someone else again (probably fo'a) opines. It looks to me like I managed to misstate my position completely (or get misunderstood). ~mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQB1AwUBMrrApcppGeTJXWZ9AQEBdQMAoMe9FikloPWeZcDOv1c0komLRBkcVEoj J36390ND0Te8XzMCCe0EpGB6s2cOCQFKvDddtTYRjAeXky8e0F/muA3DXP9tUQ9p wFML6TLzPyt8veWn+rz433ZW6rkm4NJ+ =M0NS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----