From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:59:00 2010 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list Date: Wed Dec 18 15:43:35 1996 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: PLI: evidentials in reported speech X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199612181518.KAA06928@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Don Wiggins on Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:41:03 GMT) X-UIDL: 940ba01698221956e65094832c7cc905 Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1951 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 18 15:43:35 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: >Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:41:03 GMT >From: Don Wiggins > >I am not trying to bring fo'a's opinion in, but the jufra: > > .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u pe'i fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci > He said that<-evidential-my-opinion... > >I take to mean that it is my opinion that the particular thing he was saying >was... But, it is not my opinion, but his. Hence, the "dai". Indeed, if >further we want fo'a's opinion is that "pe'idaidai"? This is different from lu/li'u quotes. I would understand from the above sentence that it's your opinion, not ko'a's, but if you said ko'a cusku lu pe'i fo'a ca'o klama li'u would to me mean that it's ko'a's opinion, not necessarily yours. lu/li'u take in everything that was said, it's all part of the quote, it's all part of the reported speech (except sa'a-marked things). At least, that's what I thought. 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 (but then again, where do I get off expressing someone else's feelings, except when quoting? That's why "dai" is really "empathy": I'm feeling the emotion of empathy in which I fancy I feel that X is experiencing this or that emotion. The trouble is there's no way to say who X is). >>For "mi" to express mi's feelings, the attitudinal needs to be >>outside of the quotes either in actuality or in some editorial parens >>(to'i/toi?) with sa'a to unquote those (as I recall, lu/li'u quotes >>contain, semantically, ALL their contents except sa'a, which can be used to >>unquote other stuff). > >"to'i" and "sa'a" are interesting suggestion. Let me ponder awhile. I thought that was what they were for. ~mark