From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Sep 9 00:13:39 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Sep 1993 04:12:35 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Sep 1993 04:12:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199309090812.AA24201@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1620; Thu, 09 Sep 93 04:10:55 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8384; Thu, 09 Sep 93 04:13:44 EDT Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 04:13:39 -0400 Reply-To: vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: I decided to run a few example sentences through the parser in order to see whether the syntax would offer any clues for semantics. The results were mostly what I expected. However, I found an inconsistency in the way the ' KU' is interpreted in the 'Imaginary Journeys'. Let's start tracking. First a simple bridi with 4 sumti, two of them in front of the selbri to make interpreting the bracketing easier: mi ti klama ta tu ({mi ti} {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) As you see, the sumti are bracketed together. Then I inserted a PU tense: mi ti pu klama ta tu ({mi ti} { <[ta tu] VAU>}) The tense is bracketed with the selbri as it should be, sumti brackets as before. Then I changed the tense into a sumti tcita: mi pu ti klama ta tu ({mi } {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) Bracketing as expected, first the tag and the tagged sumti, then sumti brackets as before. The same for a tagged sumti after the selbri. I interleaved the sumti in a way which makes the bracketing very clear. mi klama ti pu ta tu (mi {klama <[(ti {pu ta}) tu] VAU>}) Nothing unexpected. Now, the IJ paper states that a tense can be moved around by suffixing it with KU. Let's see what happens. puku mi ti klama ta tu ({<[pu ku] mi> ti} {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) Bracketing seems to be OK. Now, for consistency the KU ought to be insertable even when the tense is at the normal position, i.e. immediately preceding the selbri. Let's see what happens: mi ti puku klama ta tu ({ } {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) !!! 'pu ku' is parsed as a sumti! The KU cuts it off from the selbri. As a check I tried "pu zo'e" instead of "pu ku": pu zo'e mi ti klama ta tu ({<[pu zo'e] mi> ti} {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) mi ti pu zo'e klama ta tu ({ } {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) It parses exactly like "pu ku"! Then the ZAhOs: mi ti ba'o klama ta tu ({mi ti} { <[ta tu] VAU>}) This parsed excatly like PU. ba'oku mi ti klama ta tu ({<[ba'o ku] mi> ti} {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) This also. mi ti ba'oku klama ta tu ({ } {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) No difference what so ever. mi klama ti ba'o ta tu (mi {klama <[(ti {ba'o ta}) tu] VAU>}) Again the same parse. mi klama ti ba'oku ta tu (mi {klama <[({ti } ta) tu] VAU>}) And again. According to the parser a ZAhO behaves syntactically exactly like a PU. I tried the same with "fi'o broda fe'u" and got exactly the same result. My conclusions are: (Here I go again although I promised to leave the ZAhO question) (1) ZAhOs and PUs behave identically as far as syntax is concerned. (2) The semantics of freely floating (KU suffixed) tenses may be broken as they behave like a sumti tag with an elided sumti. However, 'PU KU' remains consistent, if we suppose that the elided sumti effectively is "le cabna". puku mi klama le tcadu In the past (of the present) I went to the city. I went to the city Sometimes it would be useful, however, if the implicit sumti weren't necessarily 'le cabna': mi klama le tcadu pu[ku] I go to the city before [something] I go to the city beforehand For 'ZAhO KU' I propose that the interpretation is "ZAhO zo'e" (ZAhO le nu me zo'e): ba'oku mi klama le tcadu Afterwards I go to the city. This interpretation seems quite intuitive. Actually much more so than the present interpretation I'm in the aftermath of going to the city (3) The interpretation of sumti tcita is straight forward, there is no difference between PU tcita and ZAhO tcita: PU => in the PU of ZAhO => in the ZAhO of This corresponds to the present interpretation. ZAhO refers to a contour of the it is attached to. We must, however, note that it DOESN'T say that the is in the phase, just like a PU tag doesn't imply anything about the tense of the . All that the ZAhO tag says is that the outer bridi is 'located' in the corresponding phase of the sumti event. We are predicating the outer event, NOT the sumti event. But we must keep in mind that just as mi klama pu le nu do klama doesn't define the tense of the outer bridi mi klama pu'o le nu do klama doesn't define the contour of the outer bridi. Both just in a way set a frame of reference -- just like the rest of the Lojban 'tenses' do when used as sumti tcita. ** Contrary to what I have stated in some of my previous postings I am now inclined to say that a ZAhO defines the contour of the outer bridi ONLY when used as a selbri tcita. I'd like to interpret a ZAhO KU as a sumti tcita with an elided sumti in order to avoid contradicting the syntax. ** Similarly I'd also maintain that a PU defines the tense (in strict sense) of the outer bridi ONLY when used as a selbri tcita. (4) When a PU or a ZAhO is used as a selbri tcita, it defines the tense resp. the contour of the outer bridi. **** **** I PROPOSE that -- CONTRARY to the present interpretation -- the 'tense' of the outer bridi is defined SOLELY with a selbri tcita in order to avoid a deviant interpretation of sumti tcita in the case of elided tagged sumti. After this clean-up the sense system contains no contra- dictions and the interpretations are quite intuitive -- at least most of them. It is, of course, always possible to find counterintuitive examples -- this is possible what ever the system. co'o mi'e veion ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi