Re: diversity

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> Xorxes>
> >If I understand your proposal, what would be the difference between it
> >and allowing objects in every slot (which the grammar already does anyway)
> >and saying that when a slot is filled with an object, the meaning is
> >the one you would get with your xa'a-xu'u?
>
> djer:
>         I find your counter proposal, well, a little extreme.  Not all
> slots can accept objects and make sense.

I didn't mean that every slot _should_ be filled with objects. Just that
whenever you would use your marker, you simply don't use it. Would that
ever cause ambiguity?

>         I would say that some of the sumti places that are currently
> restricted to events can be converted to objects, and some cannot. Let's
> call them reducible and irreducible.

This is in fact already done, although not following any rule that I can
determine. For example, zanru accepts either objects or events in x2, and
you don't need any marker to say which flavour of zanru you are using.
If you fill it with an object, you are using the object-flavoured one,
if you fill it with an event, you are using the event-flavoured one.

> Consider troci:
>
> definition:
> troci  try   x1 tries/attempts/makes an effort to do/attain
> x2 (event/state/property) by actions/method x3 [also experiments at]
>
> We have a trier, a goal state, and an action as permissible sumti
> values.  I believe it is true that if anyone is a trier, then he takes
> action, or at least expends  energy in a physical or mental way.  I say
> that x3 troci is irreducible to an object if we want to make any sense
> out of the predicate.  It must be an action; that is, a NU type sumti.
> On the other hand I can see where x2, the goal state, could be seen
> instead as an object.

If you can see x2 as an object, I can see x3 as an object, too, namely
the instrument used for trying to attain x2.

> For instance one could try to attain a door prize
> at a party by going to the party. Then one could say:
>
> xa'a ko'a cu troci lo vorme se jinga  xu'u lo nu ko'a klama lo te salci

Why not simply:

ko'a cu troci lo vorme se jinga lo nu ko'a klama lo te salci

Why do you need to mark the places that are filled with objects, when
it is already seen that they are filled with objects?

> but
> xa'a ko'a cu troci lo vorme se jinga lo te salci xu'u
>
> would make no sense since x3 troci is irreducible.  lo te salci, the
> party, is not an action taken by x1, so we have a trier whose alleged
> action is a party, which makes no sense.

Right, but you could say:

ko'a troci le nu kargau lo vorme kei le ckiku
Koha tries opening some door with the key.

If the object to be obtained can be seen as the goal of the trial, then the
object used can be seen as the method of the trial.

But this is beside the point. Given that the selbri makes some sense
when filled with an object, why do we need any special additional mark
to warn that we are filling it with an object?

> Likewise (no offense) it would make no sense under your reductio ad
> absurdum proposal which yields the same result.

My proposal only allows to eliminate xa'a-xu'u whenever you would
require them.

To show that xa'a-xu'u would ever be needed you only need an example
of a sentence that means two different things when xa'a-xu'u is there
and when it isn't.

> With this I rest my case on xa'a-xu'u. Thanks, xorxes, for many thought
> provoking ideas,

Your ideas are thought provoking too, keep them coming.

Jorge