Re: PLI: evidentials in reported speech

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date:         Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:58:59 GMT
>From: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
>
>cu'ula mark. tu'e
>>As to pe'idaidai, it won't do what you want, I think.  dai is not so
>>mechanically defined.  It just means that the emotion in question is felt
>>more as "empathy" with someone else, and not the speaker.  Who is that
>>someone else?  There's no clear answer.  I often wish there were a simple
>>way to say a UI really belongs to someone else
>tu'u
>
>This seems to contradict what I think.
>
>"dai" is not mechanically defined, but I can certainly empathised that someone
>else is empathising something.

Hmm.... I can see that.  So you'd use "pe'idaidai" to imply that the
speaker empathizes that ko'a empathizes that fo'a opines.... I can see that
could work.  I thiought you were just using "dai" in some mechanical way to
push the perceiver of a UI from person to person.  It might get hard to
keep track of, though.

>So,
>
>    1) .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u pe'i fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci
>    2) .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u pe'idai fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci
>    3) .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u pe'idaidai fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci
>
>For kris and I, 1 indicates that it is my opinion what ko'a said.
>2 indicates that it was originally ko'a's opinion that she was going to the
>market.  3 indicates that the opinion given by ko'a was someone else's.
>This is under the proviso that "dai" is not definite and it could be
>anyone else's opinion, but the most likely interpretation is given.
>
>For .and and mark, the evidential can never be sub-ordinated so that the only
>way to indicate ko'a opinion is by predication such as:
>
>    4) .i ko'a jinvi cusku lesedu'u fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci

Hold on!  First of all, I never commented on using du'u.  For me

ko'a cusku lu pe'i fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci li'u

IS subordinating the UI, and the speaker is reporting that the pe'i was
expressed by ko'a, and thus "fo'a ca'o klama" is in ko'a's opinion.  And
maintains (as I understand it) that UI's are never quoted, and I maintain
that lu/li'u quotes everything but sa'a.  So enclosing the UI in lu/li'u
and putting the quote in the mouth of someone else is saying that that
someone else expressed the emotion in question.

Regarding du'u, I believe that does NOT quote UI's, and thus they are still
said by the speaker.  So it looks to me like I would agree with the
interpretations you have for 1-3 as belonging to you and kris.  In the
first case, it's the your opinion about what's said, in the second, you are
empathizing someone else's opining (presumably ko'a's, though it's not
necessarily unambiguous), and in (3) you're empathizing that someone else
(probably ko'a) is empathizing that someone else again (probably fo'a)
opines.

It looks to me like I managed to misstate my position completely (or get
misunderstood).

~mark


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMrrApcppGeTJXWZ9AQEBdQMAoMe9FikloPWeZcDOv1c0komLRBkcVEoj
J36390ND0Te8XzMCCe0EpGB6s2cOCQFKvDddtTYRjAeXky8e0F/muA3DXP9tUQ9p
wFML6TLzPyt8veWn+rz433ZW6rkm4NJ+
=M0NS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----