From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Feb 01 06:45:49 2002
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Feb 2002 14:45:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 55581 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 14:45:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167)
  by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2002 14:45:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46)
  by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 14:45:48 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.16]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
          id <20020201144546.NNYB7000.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:45:46 +0000
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:45:05 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMEEADFHAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
In-Reply-To: <007601c1aa9e$c9e3f8c0$c4b7003e@default>
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13151

Adam:
> la .and. cusku di'e
> 
> > I agree that "sei cumki" is the UI-like way to say "possibly".
> >
> > However, what you describe as 'shifting focus' is actually in some
> cases
> > a shift also in truth conditions. The 'logical' way to defocalize
> superstructure
> > would be to leave the logical structure in standard selbri + sumti
> form, and
> > to indicate (de)focalization by means of UI.
> 
> In what way can it shift truth conditions? 

IIRC, sei is supposed to be metalinguistic, i.e. outside the
(truth-conditions of) the proposition that is claimed, desired
or whatever.

> The only possibility I can
> think of would be in cases where the selbrivla does not claim the
> subsentence, as in 'cumki'. If you claim that 'sei cumki mi klama'
> claims that mi klama, then clearly that has a different truth value
> than 'le nu mi klama cu cumki'; however, there are many UI which
> change the truth value, so I don't see any reason why 'sei' clauses
> must be different. Also, I consider 'sei cumki mi klama' to be the
> same as 'le nu kau mi klama cu cumki' (using 'kau' for the
> focus-marking UI), at least until someone objects or comes up with
> something better.

Well, I can't quite remember whether sei is supposed to be 
metalinguistic, or whether it is just a device for creating adverbials,
but if it is metalinguistic then I do object. Woldy is inaccessible
to me right now, so I can't check.

--And.