Re: [bpfk-announce] Re: Current checkpoint

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

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.

mu'o mi'e xorxes