From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Sep 2 06:51:01 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 2 Sep 1993 12:11:24 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 2 Sep 1993 12:11:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199309021611.AA08566@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3789; Thu, 02 Sep 93 12:09:49 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6393; Thu, 02 Sep 93 12:11:50 EDT Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 10:51:01 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Event contours and ZAhO tcita X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9309012309.AA04309@relay1.UU.NET> from "Jorge LLambias" at Sep 1, 93 07:08:15 pm Status: O X-Status: la xorxes. cusku di'e > This is fine, but then what is the definition of broda' for a > PU ZAhO tcita, say "puza'o"? > > "which takes place in the past of the za'o phase of x4"? > (This splits "puza'o") > > or "which takes place in the za'o phase of x4, which is in the past"? > (This keeps puza'o as one tense, but is different from the use of > "pu" as tcita.) This (more or less) is the interpretation lojbab gave. I believe the right answer is that nobody knows the right answer yet. We attempt to define semantics to the extent needed to get the language bootstrapped: thus (e.g.) the le/lo distinction discussed here recently. There are many constructs that are grammatical but as yet have no known use: mi klama le zarci ve'i le nu do dansu le bisli Somebody may someday mean something by this, but I at least do not understand it. (I know several things it probably doesn't mean, though.) > > 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. > > I'm not sure why this is a GENERAL consequence of specifying a sumti. > It can only apply to ZAhO tcita sumti, or am I missing something? > Of course it is possible to say things that are contradictory, with > any interpretation. I think the answer is that specifying a sumti (modal or standard) does not contour the bridi, because contouring is achieved with selbri tcita. > Compare: > > __mi dunda le cakla do__ > I give you the chocolate. > and > __mi dunda le cakla do bai le mi mamta__ > I give you the chocolate compelled by my mother. > > Is the relationship between "mi", "le cakla" and "do" unchanged? I would be inclined to say no: it is still the case that I give you the chocolate. The "bai" place has added new information, not overridden old information. > I agree that the meaning that the ZAhO have is reasonable for a > sumti tcita. What I'm saying is that that meaning does not fit well > with their meaning as tenses. This is most clear in the case of > the ZAhOs other than "pu'o" and "ba'o". For instance: > > mi zutse le srasu za'o le nu co'a carvi > *I keep sitting on the grass as it starts to rain. > > Under the current interpretation, I'd have to say: > > mi za'o zutse le srasu ca le nu co'a carvi No, that doesn't work, because "ca" is aorist. You can say: co'a carvi za'o le nu mi zutse le srasu or equivalently: mi zutse le srasu .iza'obo co'a carvi or: za'ogi co'a carvi gi mi zutse le srasu with differences in what is claimed. One possible way around this problem would be a new particle, say "xa'o", such that xa'o+ZAhO is grammatically equivalent to a brivla with place structure: x1 (event) is the phase of x2 (event). That would allow sentences like: le nu co'a carvi xa'o za'o le nu mi zutse le srasu Comments? -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.