[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bpfk-announce] Re: Current checkpoint
On 6/19/07, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
I would define it as
sei marks a bridi which expresses a claim at the metalinguistic level
about the utterance in which the sei clause is embedded. Such a claim
usually is information about the circumstances under which the utterance
was made, which could include identification of the speaker/author, the
circumstances under which the speaker/author expressed the utterance, or
some discursive relation (cf selma'o UI discursives) or emotional state
(cf selma'o UI attitudinals) of the speaker/author.
OK, it seems to be an expanded version of what we have now.
I prefer to reserve "the speaker" for the speaker of the sei-clause,
which is what we are defining, rather than for the original speaker of
the clause in which the sei-clause is embedded, which usually will be
the same speaker of the sei-clause, but may not be in the case of
quotations.
In cases where quotes are not involved, the speaker of the outer clause
is the same speaker of the sei-clause. The example given is like that:
.i ku'i fe'e mo'a roi trene sei mi zo roi kelci pilno
But there are trains in too few places (to use "roi" playfully).
The sei clause is a metalinguistic claim about the outer clause, but
the speaker is commenting on their own clause. This would be the
basic case.
The identification of the original speaker of the outer clause or the
circumstances in which that outer utterance was produced would be a
special use of {sei} within a quoted text. It is a specific type of comment
on that quoted clause.
The truth value of the metalinguistic bridi is distinct from that of the
utterance in which it is embedded (i.e. it is possible for the SEI
clause to be false while the bridi it is embedded in is true).
Given two bridi, it is always the case that one can be true while the
other is false, so I'm not sure how this is special about sei-bridi.
--------------
I would suggest that someone look at and use (possibly needing
corrections of vocabulary) at Athelstan's translation of Saki's _Open
Window_ which I believe was the text that originally required the
existence of SEI. IIRC, there is a lot of conversation in the story,
and there are several examples of embedded information in the quotes,
about the speaker's actions or expressions while saying whatever was
being said.
It's in ju'i lobypli 10, I'll take a look.
The other use of SEI, IIRC (I think this is se'i) , is for editorial
correction - used when editorially inserting a paraphrase or a "sic"
comment in a quoted text and setting that comment apart from the text in
which it appears.
I think you are thinking of {to'i}, in TO. {se'i} is a UI for self-directed.
The only other member of SEI is {ti'o}.
Note that normal usage of SEI inside a quotation also uses "sa'a" so as
to mark that the SEI clause itself should be considered "invisible".
"Normal" in what sense? Nobody seems to use it like that.
This was concocted for the rare case of quoting a text which has an
embedded SEI clause in it, which clause is itself part of the quote, and
not a comment on the quote.
But requiring {sa'a} for the frequent case, and no {sa'a} for the rare case
is anti-Zipfean. It is better to indicate that the sei is part of the
quote in the
rare cases when it is. Perhaps with {sei sa'anai}. (Athelstan doesn't seem
to use sa'a, from a quick look.) {sei sa'a} would not be wrong, of course,
but it shouldn't be required.
mu'o mi'e xorxes