From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Aug 31 21:36:21 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 01:35:07 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 01:35:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199309010535.AA13583@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5598; Wed, 01 Sep 93 01:33:32 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4173; Wed, 01 Sep 93 01:36:24 EDT Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 01:36:21 -0400 Reply-To: vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Event contours and ZAhO tcita X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: Let's approach the question of ZAhO tcita from a new angle. The purpose of ZAhO tcita - or of any sumti tcita - is to reinsert a sumti place which has been 'deleted' from the definition of a gismu (or a selbri). I.e. x1 broda x2 x3 ZAhO xz = x1 broda' x2 x3 x4 where the definition of broda' = the definition of broda augmented with something like "which takes place in the ZAhO phase of x4" (again omitting details). The definitions of many a gismu contain similar segments, e.g. "at/near x3" in cirko x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3 Now, adding "ZAhO xz" to a bridi with broda has the same effect as specifying "x4" in a bridi with broda'. Specifying a sumti has generally the following consequencies: (1) it NEVER does give a contour to the outer bridi -- all the sumti must be specifiable at the same time and different sumti might imply different contours, even mutually contradictory. A change in the contour would also imply a change in the relationship between the sumti - and this is hardly an acceptable option (i.e. that specifying a sumti would change the relationship between the rest). (2) it can - and almost invariably does - specify a 'phase' for the sumti itself. Each time a sumti is inserted into a sumti place in a bridi a specific aspect/phase/contour of the sumti itself is raised. It doesn't matter whether the sumti place in question is a standard place or a tagged place - there is no principal difference, standard places just omit the tags. In the specific case of ZAhO tcita (1) is actually a most sensible interpretation as it is possible to have 2 or more ZAhO tcita at the same time: mi klama ba'o le nu do klama ku pu'o le nu ko'a klama There is a certain subtle difference between external and internal ZAhOs in a sumti tcita. (A) mi klama ba'o le nu do klama (B) mi klama ca'o le nu do ba'o klama In (A) there is a vague connection between my coming and the aftermath of your coming in addition to the temporal sync. In (B) the aftermath has some unspecified significance in regard to you, too. An external ZAhO doesn't give a contour to the sumti event in the normal sense. The event remains a whole - a point event - and the ZAhO just indicates a phase, the internal sumti are kind of de-emphasized in respect to the phase. There is no explication of the internal sumti being 'in the state of ...'. The indicated phase of the event taken as a whole has some properties which are relevant to the outer event or, vice versa, the outer event constitutes the core of the indicated phase - the exact relationship is vague. At the conceptual level there is actually no differencence between PU tcita and ZAhO tcita. Or let's say the differences are akin to the differences between any other sumti places. Veijo ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi