Re: PLI: evidentials in reported speech

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

cu'ula .and. tu'e
>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?
tu'u

The point is that it always possible to predicate any emotional, but I think
that it also possible to use "dai" and use the evidential in reported speech.

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.

cu'ula kris. tu'e
>Hmmm, would it be equivalent to say (in Lojban)
>
>   La and said that (phwoar-dai) JC is playing G
>
>placing the empathy-ized attitudinal after "lenu" or
>between "le" and "nu"?  Or after "said", maybe?
tu'u

I think that this backs up what I think.

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

ni'o co'omi'e dn.