Re: PLI: evidentials in reported speech

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Mark:
> >The simple answer is that unquoted UI (or most of them) hold
> >at utterance level and are not subordinable within, say, a
> >reported jufra se valsi. They are like "Wow!" and "Ouch!" and
> >"OOH, there there" and parentheticals like "(I reckon)", etc.
> >Similarly in English "He read that Julie Christie (phwoar!)
> >plays Gertrude", said by me, the "phwoar" expresses my emotion.
> >
> >If you wanted to report me saying "JC (phwoar!) is playing G"
> >then you might say "La and said lickerishly that JC is playing
> >G", for example. Same goes for Lojban.
> >
> >Or have I missed the point of the debate?
>
> I was under the impression it was just the other way 'round.  I thought
> that with minimal changes, you could take a huge utterance said by anyone,
> put lu/li'u around it (assuming it's grammatical Lojban) and say "la
> bab. cusku..." and attribute it all to the speaker.  Without having to
> check for the myriads of UI words that probably are there; only if there's
> a sa'a (which then has to become sa'asa'a).  Otherwise it becomes terribly
> difficult to quote people, since UI words are (or should be) fairly common
> in speech, quoted and otherwise.

I was talking about saying *that* such and such is the case, as
opposed to saying/uttering the words "such and such is the case".
I.e. where the "sayee" is a proposition rather than verbal.

And