Re: PLI: evidentials in reported speech

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

>>How does one write reported speech that originally contained an evidential:
>>
>>    .i ko'a cusku lu .i  pe'i    fo'a   ca'o   klama   lo  zarci li'u
>>        He   said  " I-opine-that she is-still going to-the shop.  "
>>

>Everything inside lu/li'u is part
>of the quotation and thus part of what was expressed by the speaker (ko'a).
>So your first sentence indicates that ko'a said fo'a is going to the shop,
>and that's ko'a's opinion (and indeed, that ko'a SAID it was ko'a's
>opinion).

That is exactly what I meant.

>>Is this equivalent to:
>>
>>    .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u   pe'idai     fo'a   ca'o   klama   lo  zarci
>>         He  said   that other-opine-that she is-still going to-the shop.
>>    .i ko'a pe'idai cusku lesedu'u fo'a ca'o klama lo zarci
>>      He<-opinion-of said...

>I don't see how it could possibly refer to fo'a's opinion, that
>doesn't enter into it;

I am not trying to bring fo'a's opinion in, but the jufra:

    .i ko'a cusku lesedu'u   pe'i     fo'a   ca'o   klama   lo  zarci
        He  said   that<-evidential-my-opinion...

I take to mean that it is my opinion that the particular thing he was saying
was...  But, it is not my opinion, but his.  Hence, the "dai".  Indeed, if
further we want fo'a's opinion is that "pe'idaidai"?

>the question I thought you were asking is if the
>"pe'i" could be considered to refer to the speaker of the whole sentence
>("mi").

To be honest, I not 100% sure what evidentials embedded in a jufra mean.

>For "mi" to express mi's feelings, the attitudinal needs to be
>outside of the quotes either in actuality or in some editorial parens
>(to'i/toi?) with sa'a to unquote those (as I recall, lu/li'u quotes
>contain, semantically, ALL their contents except sa'a, which can be used to
>unquote other stuff).

"to'i" and "sa'a" are interesting suggestion.  Let me ponder awhile.

ni'o co'omi'e dn.