[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: auto-insertion or VSO



Bob Chassell writes:
> 5a. James Carter suggests replicating the previous sumti.
>
>     In this case, when you hear the sentence you automatically and
>     effortlessly insert the most recent sumti previous to the abstract
>     clause in the unmarked place of the abstract clause:
>
>        naku             mi djica  <lenu         [mi] farlu      le loldi>
>        It is false that I  desire  the  event of me  falling to the floor

You got it -- specifically, the "automatically and effortlessly" part.
I feel, and several non-English-native-speaker informants feel, that
the "mi" is really there, appearing automatically.  While one could
cram an x1 occupant in there (in various NL's), that speech pattern
would be rare.

Note that by far the most common pattern is to replicate the sumti just
before the abstract one -- but occasional words need a different
replication pattern, or to have replication suppressed, and I found it
necessary in -gua!spi to insert dictionary instructions for what
replication is needed in every abstract place individually.

>     My understand of what Jim Carter suggested is that if I want to
>     talk about something unspecified falling to the floor, then I am
>     required to use "zo'e" to indicated the unspecified subject...
>     I find this requirement odd.  I can understand why you might want
>     it---it forces a different kind of precision; but to me it makes
>     more sense for an unspecified entity to remain unspecified.

Yes, this is a side effect of the proposal -- which I justify on
pragmatic grounds, just as the "start at x2" rule is justified on the
same pragmatic grounds.  Hardly any (like 1% or less) of the abstract
sumti I have encountered have needed an explicit x1 occupant, and so
some scheme is justified to fence unmarked sumti out of x1.  In Lojban
the rule is, "that's just the way it is".  For me, another decision has
the side effect of blocking out x1, which is neat, and fits my aesthetic
sense, but is purely coincidental.

The other decision (replication) is justified on related but different
grounds, that nearly all abstract sumti actually are talking about the
replicated main bridi place -- and without that place occupant being
actually present in the abstract bridi, the meaning of the abstract
bridi is too flimsy to analyse logically.  The reason I tolerate a
requirement for an explicit zo'e is that I find it very rare.

                -- jimc