From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Sep 9 19:22:27 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Sep 1993 23:24:49 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Sep 1993 23:24:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199309100324.AA11336@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7339; Thu, 09 Sep 93 23:22:56 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7098; Thu, 09 Sep 93 23:25:55 EDT Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 23:22:27 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: I'll have to read this more carefully later, and in any case, it is John's onus to respond regarding what IJ says. But: At the level you are looking, indeed, PU+KU and ZAhO+KU and PU+KOhA and ZAhO+KOhA all parse "like a sumti". Actually, they parse as a "term" which is one level higher than a sumti, but that is trnasparent. BAI/SE+BAI also parse the same way. The differences between BAI, PU, and ZAhO will show up when you mix them together - they then will parse differently. But in any case, the likeness of many thiings having identical parses doesn not necessarily imply identical semantics. All of the KOhAs are parsed identically, but some are back-counting, seome are free, some are bound, and some are elliptical. What IS the case is that all of the "stag"+KU constructs have SOME expansion of the form "stag"+sumti, which is then a tagged sumti, but there should be no generalization about what type of expansion is warranted. lojbab