Re: sei

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Chris:
> The "I" comes from the presumption that attitudinals deal with the speaker's
> attitude towards the subject matter.

But {sei} is an indicator, not an attitudinal. (Don't ask me what's
the difference because I don't know yet. I'm defending this use of
{sei} because I find it extremely useful.)

> For example, {vofli .ui} means that
> the speaker is pleased about something flying, not that it's a happy kind of
> flying.

I agree.

> It's more like {vofli co se gleki mi} than {gleki vofli}.

Ok, no problem with that.

> Similarly, then,
> {cusku sei krefu} should be more like {cusku co se krefu mi} than
> {krefu cusku}.

{mi krefu} is not very meaningful: "I am a repetition of some event".
It does not mean "I say again".

> If you want it to refer to something other than the speaker, you should fill
> in the x1 with something else to override the {mi} default.  e.g. {le nanmu
> cu klama le zarci sei la noras. cusku}

I refuse to accept that {sei} has a {mi} default for its selbri. An empty
slot there should be filled by context as is the usual case.
If the selbri needs a person as the x1, then I might agree that "I" may
be a probable choice, although one of the sumti of the main bridi might
also be possible, but in the case of {krefu} {mi} doesn't make any
sense at all.

la goran cusku di'e

> .i mi pu'inai djuno le jai ta'i pilno zo sei

i djuno du'u ta'i makau pilno zo sei

[Using {le jai ta'i pilno} instead of {le du'u ta'i makau} is the
same mistake as using {le jei} instead of {le du'u xukau}.
The x2 of {djuno} has to be a proposition. It can't be a tadji
or a namcu.]

> lu sei se krefu li'u selsmu
> la'ezo ke'u vau xunai

i na go'i  i zo krefu zo ke'u na ckini lo sampu

>.i mi na djuno fi lu sei krefu li'u .i pe'i
> lu sei broda li'u simsa .ei lu to dei broda toi .i pei

i pe'i su'oroi lu to la'e dei broda toi li'u
i ku'i na kampu javni

co'o mi'e xorxes