Re: Still a few thoughts about ZAhOs

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

la djan. cusku di'e
>
> la veion. cusku di'e
>
> > A bridi like
> >
> >          da ZAhO broda de di
> >
> > syntactically represents a relation between the sumti da, de and di.
> > This bridi also contains an implicit reference to the event contour
> > of the event corresponding to the underlying simple bridi "da broda
> > de di". The temporal aspect of this reference can be folded out of
> > the bridi into an additional sumti using the ZAhO as sumti tcita.
> > This gives us (approximately, ignoring perhaps some finer points
> > relating to the ZAhO in question)
> >
> >          da *ZAhO_broda de di ZAhO le nu da broda de di
> >
> > e.g.
> >
> >          da ba'o klama de di
> >      =>  da *ba'o_klama de di ba'o le nu da klama de di
> >
> > where "*ba'o_klama" very clearly cannot equal "klama" as the relation
> > between da, de and di IS NOT "da klama de di" anymore in the AFTERMATH
> > of the coming -- da is already at de, not coming to de anymore.
>
> I believe that most of your thoughts on ZAhOs are entirely sound.
> However, I cannot agree with the above conclusions, because of the
> lack of tense on "le nu da klama de di".
>

This gets interesting! Then the ba'o as sumti tcita does _not_ define
a contour for the internal event of the sumti? This is what I would like,
but not what I've been told up to now, assuming that I understood what
I've been told.

To be consistent with the other tenses, the contour should apply to the
main bridi, but it doesn't. In fact, it seems that as sumti tcita, the
ZAhOs acquire the ability to give a contour to both the main bridi and
the bridi inside the sumti.

So, although I don't like the present interpretation, it seems to indicate
that Veijo is right. (Accepting as he does that he is ignoring some finer
points.)


> You treat "da klama de di" as if it meant "da caca'oca'a klama de di", but
> IT DOES NOT.  It is open as to tense proper, aspect, and actuality.
> So "ba'o_klama" is not a different relationship from "klama" proper, but
> simply a subtype of it: it is klama seen from the aftermath perspective.
>
> We are prone to believe that "caca'oca'a", that which is actually continuing
> now, is the most important part of the event, and can always be assumed as
> the default, but it cannot.  "klama" is a most expansive relation, and
> just as well associates the coming of Paul to Damascus, an event which
> long ago entered its "ba'o" stage, as my going home tonight, which is
> hardly even in its "pu'o" stage yet.
>

Presumably, Paul's coming to damascus has long ago _left_ its ba'o stage too,
or is all this "immediate relevance to the present" that we've been assuming
unwarranted?

Jorge