Re: [bpfk-announce] Re: Current checkpoint

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- 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).