From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:59:01 2010 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list Date: Thu Dec 19 12:25:36 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: <199612181858.NAA20500@cs.columbia.edu> (message from And Rosta on Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:53:21 GMT+0) X-UIDL: 37bc6159a173b35835fd320c6ad4f582 Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1277 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 19 12:25:36 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: <5anWoqP-kOH.A.5BC.160kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> >Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:53:21 GMT+0 >From: And Rosta >Organization: University of Central Lancashire > >The simple answer is that unquoted UI (or most of them) hold >at utterance level and are not subordinable within, say, a >reported jufra se valsi. They are like "Wow!" and "Ouch!" and >"OOH, there there" and parentheticals like "(I reckon)", etc. >Similarly in English "He read that Julie Christie (phwoar!) >plays Gertrude", said by me, the "phwoar" expresses my emotion. > >If you wanted to report me saying "JC (phwoar!) is playing G" >then you might say "La and said lickerishly that JC is playing >G", for example. Same goes for Lojban. > >Or have I missed the point of the debate? I was under the impression it was just the other way 'round. I thought that with minimal changes, you could take a huge utterance said by anyone, put lu/li'u around it (assuming it's grammatical Lojban) and say "la bab. cusku..." and attribute it all to the speaker. Without having to check for the myriads of UI words that probably are there; only if there's a sa'a (which then has to become sa'asa'a). Otherwise it becomes terribly difficult to quote people, since UI words are (or should be) fairly common in speech, quoted and otherwise. ~mark