Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 13 Sep 1993 09:11:28 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 13 Sep 1993 09:11:21 -0400
Message-Id: <199309131311.AA06776@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 8302; Mon, 13 Sep 93 09:09:38 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 4269; Mon, 13 Sep 93 09:12:37 EDT
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1993 09:12:32 -0400
Reply-To: vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      Re: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Sep 13 05:12:32 1993
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET

The following posting from me didn't apparently get past the list
server on the first try.

Date:          9 Sep 93 13:31:22

> Subject:       Parsing tenses and sumti tcita
> Date:          9 Sep 93 11:05:30

  A slight addition to the following section

>  (3) The interpretation of sumti tcita is straight forward, there
>      is no difference between PU tcita and ZAhO tcita:
>
>            PU   <sumti>  => in the PU   of <sumti>
>            ZAhO <sumti>  => in the ZAhO of <sumti>
>
>      This corresponds to the present interpretation. ZAhO refers
>      to a contour of the <sumti> it is attached to. We must,
>      however, note that it DOESN'T say that the <sumti> is in
>      the phase, just like a PU tag doesn't imply anything about
>      the tense of the <sumti>. 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.

     The above defines the basic (i.e. syntax driven part of the)
     semantics of the ZAhO tcita. Additionally we DEFINE that the
     action of the outer bridi considered as a point event IS (at
     least part of) the indicated phase of the sumti event seen as
     a process. This clarification in no way contradicts the
     syntactic semantics. I think, although I am not quite sure,
     that this cannot actually be derived from the syntax but is more
     dictated by the need for a pragmatic rule which fits the nature
     of processes in general. Adding this deeper connection (in
     addition to the temporal one) makes the ZAhO tcita much more
     expressive. Purely temporal simultaneity can be expressed using
     "seti'u" as the sumti tcita. E.g.

              mi sipna ba'o le nu mi citka

           and

              mi sipna seti'u le nu mi ba'o citka


  *  The explanation in the last revision of the IJ paper still
     seems adequate to me.

         co'o mi'e veion

------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi