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

Event contours and ZAhO tcita

Let's approach the question of ZAhO tcita from a new angle.
The purpose of ZAhO tcita - or of any sumti tcita - is to
reinsert a sumti place which has been 'deleted' from the
definition of a gismu (or a selbri). I.e.

  x1 broda x2 x3 ZAhO xz = x1 broda' x2 x3 x4

where the definition of broda' = the definition of broda
augmented with something like "which takes place in the ZAhO
phase of x4" (again omitting details). The definitions of many
a gismu contain similar segments, e.g. "at/near x3" in

  cirko   x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3

Now, adding "ZAhO xz" to a bridi with broda has the same
effect as specifying "x4" in a bridi with broda'.

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.

      A change in the contour would also imply a change in the
      relationship between the sumti - and this is hardly an
      acceptable option (i.e. that specifying a sumti would
      change the relationship between the rest).

  (2) it can - and almost invariably does - specify a 'phase'
      for the sumti itself. Each time a sumti is inserted into
      a sumti place in a bridi a specific aspect/phase/contour
      of the sumti itself is raised. It doesn't matter whether
      the sumti place in question is a standard place or a tagged
      place - there is no principal difference, standard places
      just omit the tags.

In the specific case of ZAhO tcita (1) is actually a most
sensible interpretation as it is possible to have 2 or more
ZAhO tcita at the same time:

  mi klama ba'o le nu do klama ku pu'o le nu ko'a klama

There is a certain subtle difference between external and
internal ZAhOs in a sumti tcita.

  (A) mi klama ba'o le nu do klama

  (B) mi klama ca'o le nu do ba'o klama

In (A) there is a vague connection between my coming and
the aftermath of your coming in addition to the temporal
sync. In (B) the aftermath has some unspecified significance
in regard to you, too.

An external ZAhO doesn't give a contour to the sumti event
in the normal sense. The event remains a whole - a point
event - and the ZAhO just indicates a phase, the internal
sumti are kind of de-emphasized in respect to the phase.
There is no explication of the internal sumti being 'in the
state of ...'. The indicated phase of the event taken as a
whole has some properties which are relevant to the outer
event or, vice versa, the outer event constitutes the core
of the indicated phase - the exact relationship is vague.

At the conceptual level there is actually no differencence
between PU tcita and ZAhO tcita. Or let's say the differences
are akin to the differences between any other sumti places.


 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi