DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;  b=hG0pLOfXlY2bo6I+S/+UD3SAYiN3d2gRbrBXFV0ErYbuBMCQ+4QJCIVm2tBN8gclRhD4sIgP+6W4C/XM3je3c6JFAJW2PV7bj1DsBgrZXnQi7kXl7uUMSvmIJafQLvMtd4nez9bdYA3UggTqXY4/EU+J941XaPBBIKCY2RSkmA4=;
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: Current checkpoint
To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <925d17560706201806i521404fw4162906a831f72f9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <291025.33341.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1324


--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/07, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > The point, I think, is that, while the whole looks like a compound sentence, in which the
> truth of
> > one component may affect tht truth of the whole, here there is no whole in that sense. That
> is,
> > the two claims are independent and their combination does not make a new entity (more than any
> two
> > successive sentences) whoses truth is somehow related to the "parts." So a contrast with
> various
> > attitudinals and logical connectives and what not.   This is merely cutting off any
> implication of
> > similarity to some of the other things around in this area of the grammar.  I think.
> 
> I think it's true that the sei-clause will not affect the truth of the container
> clause. Since the sei-clause is metalinguistic, the container clause has no
> possible way to access it. But in the other direction, there does seem to
> be a connection, because the sei-clause will normally be precisely about
> the container utterance. An obvious case is Athlestan's {sei dei jetnu} which
> will be true just in case the container clause is true.

True, but that is about {jetnu}, not about {sei}.  That relation would hold however the two
sentences were connected (or if not at all).