Re: Event contours and ZAhO tcita

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

la veion cusku di'e
>
> 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).

This is fine, but then what is the definition of broda' for a
PU ZAhO tcita, say "puza'o"?

"which takes place in the past of the za'o phase of x4"?
(This splits "puza'o")

or "which takes place in the za'o phase of x4, which is in the past"?
(This keeps puza'o as one tense, but is different from the use of
"pu" as tcita.) This (more or less) is the interpretation lojbab gave.

> 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.

>
>       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.

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.

Is the relationship between "mi", "le cakla" and "do" unchanged?

>
>   (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.

Again, I don't see why this is general.

        __mi xenru le nu carvi__
        I regret the rain.

What specific aspect/phase/contour of the sumti is raised?

>
> 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

This would mean:
*My coming is over when you come and hasn't happened when ko'a comes.

i.e. ko'a comes first, then I, then you. Under the current interpretation,
it's the other way around.

Of course, you could make it semantically weird by adding proper time
tenses (PU), but so is:

mi klama ne'u la romas be'a la paris


> 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.

There is no difference if you forget about their meanings when used
as tenses.

I agree that the meaning that the ZAhO have is reasonable for a
sumti tcita. What I'm saying is that that meaning does not fit well
with their meaning as tenses. This is most clear in the case of
the ZAhOs other than "pu'o" and "ba'o". For instance:

mi zutse le srasu za'o le nu co'a carvi
*I keep sitting on the grass as it starts to rain.

Under the current interpretation, I'd have to say:

mi za'o zutse le srasu ca le nu co'a carvi

but then, it is less clear that the "natural end" of my sitting
on the grass is the start of the rain.

co'o mi'e xorxes