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

Re: Event contours and ZAhO tcita

la veion cusku di'e
> The purpose of a sumti tcita is to make visible a sumti place which
> originally was left away from the definition of a gismu. When the
> place structure of a gismu is defined, all the possible places are
> considered and those which seem most relevant are retained. This
> doesn't mean, however, that the rest disappear from the underlying
> relationship. They still are part of it and the sumti tcita are
> the mechanism which makes it possible to define -- at least a part
> of -- the sumti which have no permanent sumti place.

I don't agree with this. I think that a sumti place left out of the
definition changes the meaning of the relationship. {klama} and {cliva}
are not just two ways of writing the same thing.

> > > 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.
>    Here I am talking about the event contours of the outer bridi.
>    If ZAhO tcita sumti are the only sumti which might change the
>    contour then the rule can be given in the above form without
>    getting into trouble with the other types.

Of course, but you were using the rule as a justification. If it can only
possibly apply meaningfully to ZAhOs then the fact that it applies in
general does not explain why it applies to ZAhOs.

>    BTW. I do agree with John Cowan in that I see a deeper connection
>    between the outer point event and the phase of the sumti event
>    in addition to the temporal sync. The formulation in the last
>    revision of the 'Imaginary Journeys' (Rev. 3.17, available from
>    the FTP server) seems to me quite adequate.
I also agree about the deeper connection, I just would like it in the
reverse way: between the sumti and the phase of the outer event.

> > >     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).
> > Why? Any added sumti places modifies the relationship in some way.
>    It isn't a question of adding a sumti place but inserting
>    sumti into a place which just has been made visible
> > 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.
> here the original ought to read
>         __mi dunda le cakla do [bai] zo'e__

This to me means something different. The idea of coercion is totally
absent in the first sentence, present in the second, and hinted at in
the third.

> because all the sumti places are there even if they are not
> expressed in the definition of "dunda". The question of coersion
> is left open in the definition but the possibility is not excluded
> -- a "bai noda" is required if we are to state explicitly that
> there is no coersion involved.

I agree that it is not excluded, but it is not left open in the same
sense as when a sumti place is left vacant.

> Let's take another example.
>    c1 cliva c2 c3 c4 seka'a k2 = c1 klama k2 c2 c3 c4
> or to put it in reverse
>    k1 klama zo'e k3 k4 k5 = k1 cliva k3 k4 k5 [seka'a zo'e]
> Basically both klama and cliva are incarnations of an underlying
> super-klama relation which describes movement and includes all
> imaginable sumti places expressible with BAI, ZAhO tags etc. ad nauseam.

If this is true, then thanks to fi'o, all selbri are just incarnations
of one single mega-super-broda. I.e. they all mean the same thing, and
observatives where no sumti is specified are all synonymous.

> The definitions of klama, cliva and other movement gismu just pick a
> suitable subset of these myriad places. The important thing to note is
> that inserting a sumti into anyone of the underlying invisible sumti
> places will have no effect either on the relationship between the already
> expressed sumti or the contour of the event.
{mi klama} and {mi cliva} say exactly the same thing?

> > > (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.
I accept your explanation of this one. However, the property of the
sumti that is raised (I prefer "property" rather than "phase", and this
is what you use in your explanation) need not be the phase that the ZAhO
points to, but could be the marking of that phase.

>    Whatever the system, it is always possible to find examples
>    where another interpretation would result in a simpler or
>    more elegant expression. (I guess we all agree on this :-)
Yes. :)

>    Personally I must say that I find it extremely hard to interpret
>    your za'o tag example the way you'd like it to be interpreted.
>    When I try to see the za'o giving phase to the outer bridi, this
>    results in
>      mi zutse le srasu za'o[ku] ?!?! le nu co'a carvi

                                  ti'u !!!!

This would work for all time tenses, just as tu'i would for space tenses.

>    and I feel that the sumti is left hanging in the air with no
>    connection what so ever to the rest of the bridi.
>    I would express your example in the following way
>      mi za'o zutse le srasu ba'o le nu co'a carvi

Yes, this is good with the current interpretation. As I would like it, it is
also meaningful. It would say "My sitting on the grass for too long is over,
by the time it begins to rain".

> > Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:09:21 EDT
> > From: Jorge Llambias <jorge%PHYAST.PITT.EDU@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
> > Subject: Re: Event contours and ZAhO tcita
> > la djan cusku di'e
> > >
> > > 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.)
> >
> > Well, I would say that this means "My going to the store takes place in
> > a tiny region of space, which is somehow related to your dancing to the
> > ice." The phrase makes as little sense in Lojban as it does in English,
> > but not because there is any problem with the semantics rules. (Don't tell
> > me that it's the dancing that takes place in the tiny space, please!) I
> > have much more difficulty in finding a meaning for the "dansu le bisli"
> > than for the "ve'i".
> Here is one possible interpretation
>   I go to the store via the tiny space of your dancing to the
>   sound of ice.

You want to join the {ve'i} with the x4? I still don't see how dancing to the
sound of ice can determine a tiny space for the {klama le zarci} to take place,
unless much more context is provided.

> Not too weird (but then, I spent part of my summer vacation struggling
> with "Finnegan's Wake", got about halfway through).

cizra mi to zo'o ki'u zo'e toi

> I think it might actually be quite useful to limit the dancing to the tiny
> space -- the spatial extent of the dancing would then define the size of
> the otherwise rather vague interval.

You want both events in the same space? I'd accept that this may be the case
for some sumti, but I'd prefer the sumti to simply indicate the space, not
necessarily to take place in it.

> To take another example
>   mi'o casnu le nu tadni la lojban kei ve'i le nu klama le ckule
>   We discuss studying Lojban on the short stretch to the school
> And still another
>   mi zbasu le karce ve'i le kumfa
>   I assemble the car within the small space of the room
Right, but the room need not be small, it is small as far as assembling
cars goes, or it may only have little free space, but the smallness is
relevant only to the assembling, not to the room.

> as opposed to the following three variations on the same theme
>   mi zbasu le karce ne'i le cmalu kumfa
>   I assemble the car in the small room
>   mi ve'i zbasu le karce ne'i le kumfa
>   I assemble the car in a small space within the room
>   mi zbasu le karce ne'i le ve'i kumfa
>   I assemble the car within the room occupying a small space
> How about it? There are, of course, other possibilities, but I
> think this interpretation wouldn't contradict anything and
> would have at least some expressional merit.

Absolutely. And it agrees well with what I'd like for the ZAhOs.

co'o mi'e xorxes