On Monday, December 24, 2012 9:05:53 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:On 24 December 2012 11:54, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
{sei ... se'u} inside {lu ...li'u} must be a part of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks that this is wrong.
IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.
1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki ~= .ui})
2. As an alternative to moving the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}={mi jinvi lo du'u do melbi})
3. To translate partitioned quotations.
All of these meanings are actually the same. In every case, it's "meaning #2".
{.i do melbi sei mi cusku} -> {.i mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}
{.i ui do cinba mi} -> {.i sei mi gleki do cinba mi} -> {.i mi gleki lo nu do cinba mi}
Personally, I disapprove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that one can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spoken, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).
Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.
Replacing any meanings of sei with another word is unnecessary because {sei} only really has one meaning.
How can you distinguish between
{do cusku lu do klama mi li'u}
and
{do cusku lo nu do klama mi}
using {sei}?
That's a non-problem, because fasnu1 (assuming nu produces a fasnu1) can't be cusku2.
Distinguishing between sedu'u and lu is a bit more subtle, and I've seen variant uses of sei for this. The CLL's example dialogue about some people getting announcing a future marriage uses sei on the top level, without lu, but also uses "direct anaphora", which means {lu} is being indirectly used.
e.g. {.i mi'a ba spesimbi'o doi rodo sei la bab cusku} would imply lu, because the anaphora are those that Bob himself would be using.
-> {.i la bab cusku lu mi'a ba spesimbi'o doi rodo}
The contrary usage would use "indirect anaphora" and would imply sedu'u:
e.g. {.i la bab joi lo spenu'e cu spesimbi'o sei la bab cusku be fi loi ro zvati be lo kafybarja}
-> {.i la bab cusku lo sedu'u by joi lo spenu'e cu spesimbi'o kei loi ro zvati be lo kafybarja}
The doi in this case, being a free modifier, can't be carried into the sedu'u correctly, but seeing as COI too can be transformed into sei-clauses, we can move it to the outer bridi.
Deciding which is correct would simply require an authoritative decision to be made, but both at this rate are possibilities, and as it stands, there is some inconsistency in usage.
Proposal.
The same FA two times in a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.
{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}={mi pu viska lo barda je gerku}.
This system seems inconsistent: a sumti operation, namely the use of FA, causes a selbri effect.
Needless to say that "it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {ko'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases with adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.
Now such proposal allows us to express divided quotations
xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)
gleki's solution: {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)
As I mentioned above, where's the {je} ? What selbri is it connecting?
Oh sorry. The rule is {li'u je lu} annihilates itself. The order is important.
Okay... it's good to know that we're using the experimental JA-works-on-sumti proposal. Equally, {lo broda je lo brode} is not equal to {lo broda je broda}; the former causes distribution by virtue of the logical connection. {lu li'o li'u je lu li'o li'u} does not annihilate itself because it's a logical connective (unless your je is not sugar for .e, in which case I don't at all follow what you're trying to say.)
So, if I get this right, you're saying two different things:
#1 {.i lu broda li'u selsku mi fa lu .ije brode li'u} -> {.i lu broda li'u je lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi} -/> {.i lu broda li'u selsku mi .ije lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi}
#2 {.i lo barda fa lo gerku cu xunre} -> {.i lo barda je gerku cu xunre}
You do realize that these are very different things: in the first you get a pseudo-logical connective that doesn't expand into two bridi and in the second you a tanru-internal logical connective.
Again, this is inconsistent.