Can the inconsistency with {seisa'a ... se'u} be overrriden?

[la gleki]

the CLL says:

Note: The parser believes that parentheses are attached to the previous word or construct, because it treats them as syntactic equivalents of subscripts and other such so-called “free modifiers”. Semantically, however, parenthetical remarks are not necessarily attached either to what precedes them or what follows them.

...12.8) lu seisa'a la djan. cusku be dei mi klama le zarci

       John said, “I go to the store”.

12.9)  lu mi klama seisa'a la djan cusku le zarci
       “I go”, John said, “to the store”.

So is there any method of attaching sei ... se'u to bridi or jufra, not to the previous word?

Compared to that

the example

15.2)  .i sei la rik. cusku se'u ta'a ro zvati be ti
            mi baza speni ti .iu
       [Comment] Rick says, [end-comment] [Interrupt] all at this-place,
            I [future] [medium] am-spouse-to this-one [love].
       Rick said, “Sorry to break in, everybody. Pretty soon I’m getting married
            to my love here.”

seems pretty perfect. {sei} is attached to the head of the sentence. But if due to stylistic preferences I wanna insert {sei... se'u} in the middle of the sentence is there anything that can be done?

[selpa'i]

Am 15.10.2012 17:29, schrieb la gleki:
> the CLL <http://dag.github.com/cll/19/12/>says:

>
> Note: The parser believes that parentheses are attached to the previous
> word or construct, because it treats them as syntactic equivalents of
> subscripts and other such so-called “free modifiers”. Semantically,
> however, parenthetical remarks are not necessarily attached either to
> what precedes them or what follows them.
>
> ...12.8) lu seisa'a la djan. cusku be dei mi klama le zarci
>
> John said, “I go to the store”.
>
> 12.9) lu mi klama seisa'a la djan cusku le zarci
> “I go”, John said, “to the store”.
>
>
>
> So is there any method of attaching sei ... se'u to bridi or jufra, not
> to the previous word?

SEI doesn't attach to the previous word semantically. It works just like
COI in that regard. The quote above from the CLL says the same. It's a
free modifier that floats around in the bridi.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku


.

[la gleki]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:41:29 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 15.10.2012 17:29, schrieb la gleki:
> the CLL <http://dag.github.com/cll/19/12/>says:
>
> Note: The parser believes that parentheses are attached to the previous
> word or construct, because it treats them as syntactic equivalents of
> subscripts and other such so-called “free modifiers”. Semantically,
> however, parenthetical remarks are not necessarily attached either to
> what precedes them or what follows them.
>
> ...12.8) lu seisa'a la djan. cusku be dei mi klama le zarci
>
>         John said, “I go to the store”.
>
> 12.9)   lu mi klama seisa'a la djan cusku le zarci
>         “I go”, John said, “to the store”.
>
>
>
> So is there any method of attaching sei ... se'u to bridi or jufra, not
> to the previous word?

SEI doesn't attach to the previous word semantically. It works just like
COI in that regard. The quote above from the CLL says the same. It's a
free modifier that floats around in the bridi.

Does it mean then that 

do sei mi prami do se'u klama la .landyn.

and 

do klama la .landyn. sei mi prami do se'u

mean the same?

[selpa'i]

Am 15.10.2012 18:02, schrieb la gleki:
>
> Does it mean then that
>

> /do sei mi prami do se'u klama la .landyn./
> and
> /do klama la .landyn. sei mi prami do se'u/
>
> mean the same?

You mean "sei mi do prami [se'u]". SEI closes automatically once it sees
a completed selbri.
I would say they mean the same, yes.

[la gleki]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:28:01 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 15.10.2012 18:02, schrieb la gleki:
>
> Does it mean then that
>
> /do sei mi prami do se'u klama la .landyn./
> and
> /do klama la .landyn. sei mi prami do se'u/
>
> mean the same?

You mean "sei mi do prami [se'u]". SEI closes automatically once it sees
a completed selbri.
I would say they mean the same, yes.

so sei...se'u always refers to the whole bridi. 

OK. Now how can I express UI using brivla?

using {to'i}? or what?

[selpa'i]

Am 15.10.2012 19:21, schrieb la gleki:
>
>
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:28:01 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>
> Am 15.10.2012 18:02, schrieb la gleki:
> >
> > Does it mean then that
> >
> > /do sei mi prami do se'u klama la .landyn./
> > and
> > /do klama la .landyn. sei mi prami do se'u/
> >
> > mean the same?
>
> You mean "sei mi do prami [se'u]". SEI closes automatically once it
> sees
> a completed selbri.
> I would say they mean the same, yes.
>
>
> so sei...se'u always refers to the whole bridi.
> OK. Now how can I express UI using brivla?
> using {to'i}? or what?

Any description of emotions that uses things other than UI is merely an
approximation. Saying "I'm happy" is not the same thing as smiling for
example. You can use SEI to create ad-hoc "UI" though, just like you
wanted. It's just that "ui" and "sei mi gleki" aren't exactly identical,
the latter is at most a means of paraphrasing an emotion.

[iesk]

(Is {sei} related to TLI's {soi}, and is 'emotional comment' its original use? I *think* the ubiquitous {soi crano} means roughly {u'i}, but I may be really badly mistaken.)

[selpa'i]

Am 15.10.2012 22:59, schrieb iesk:
> (Is {sei} related to TLI's {soi}, and is 'emotional comment' its original use? I *think* the ubiquitous {soi crano} means roughly {u'i}, but I may be really badly mistaken.)
>

Yes, Lojban's "sei" is Loglan's "soi". It's true that "soi crano" was
used a lot, but I think it was more like " *grin* ". Also, Loglan was
lacking UI, so of course soi had to fill that "hole".

[Mark E. Shoulson]

I always considered {sei} to be essentially a way to convert a bridi
into a UI.

~mark

[la gleki]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 9:46:59 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 15.10.2012 19:21, schrieb la gleki:
>
>
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:28:01 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>
>     Am 15.10.2012 18:02, schrieb la gleki:
>      >
>      > Does it mean then that
>      >
>      > /do sei mi prami do se'u klama la .landyn./
>      > and
>      > /do klama la .landyn. sei mi prami do se'u/
>      >
>      > mean the same?
>
>     You mean "sei mi do prami [se'u]". SEI closes automatically once it
>     sees
>     a completed selbri.
>     I would say they mean the same, yes.
>
>
> so sei...se'u always refers to the whole bridi.
> OK. Now how can I express UI using brivla?
> using {to'i}? or what?

Any description of emotions that uses things other than UI is merely an
approximation. Saying "I'm happy" is not the same thing as smiling for
example. You can use SEI to create ad-hoc "UI" though, just like you
wanted. It's just that "ui" and "sei mi gleki" aren't exactly identical,
the latter is at most a means of paraphrasing an emotion.

Nevertheless, is it possible to distinguish between

la .alis. .ui  co'a prami la .bab.

vs.

la .alis. co'a prami la .bab. .ui  

using sei ...se'u?