Re: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita

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

la veion cusku di'e

> I decided to run a few example sentences through the parser
> in order to see whether the syntax would offer any clues
> for semantics. The results were mostly what I expected.
> However, I found an inconsistency in the way the '<tense> KU'
> is interpreted in the 'Imaginary Journeys'.
>
> Let's start tracking. First a simple bridi with 4 sumti,
> two of them in front of the selbri to make interpreting
> the bracketing easier:
>
> mi ti klama ta tu
> ({mi ti} {klama <[ta tu] VAU>})
>
> As you see, the sumti are bracketed together.

I think I remember John saying that one should not read too much from
the parser's bracketing. In the above, it would seem that the sumti after
the selbri are at a different level than those before it, while
semantically they are not.

Aside from that, I think your final conclusion does not follow from your
arguments.

>
> My conclusions are:
>
>  (Here I go again although I promised to leave the ZAhO question)
>
>  (1) ZAhOs and PUs behave identically as far as syntax is concerned.

As long as they are by themselves, yes. My qualm is that they don't behave
identically as far as semantics is concerned, although there is nothing
besides convention that would prevent it.

>
>  (2) The semantics of freely floating (KU suffixed) tenses may be
>      broken as they behave like a sumti tag with an elided sumti.

Yes.

>
>      However, 'PU KU' remains consistent, if we suppose that the
>      elided sumti effectively is "le cabna".
>
>             puku mi klama le tcadu
>             In the past (of the present) I went to the city.
>             I went to the city
>
Yes

>      Sometimes it would be useful, however, if the implicit sumti
>      weren't necessarily 'le cabna':
>
>             mi klama le tcadu pu[ku]
>             I go to the city before [something]
>             I go to the city beforehand

This means exactly the same as the previous one, unless you want to read
something from the order of the sumti.

>
>      For 'ZAhO KU' I propose that the interpretation is "ZAhO zo'e"
>      (ZAhO le nu me zo'e):
>
>             ba'oku mi klama le tcadu
>             Afterwards I go to the city.
>
>      This interpretation seems quite intuitive. Actually much
>      more so than the present interpretation
>
>             I'm in the aftermath of going to the city

I think there is no agreement on what is the current interpretation.
John didn't commit himself on this one, and lojbab, I think, gave the
one you prefer.

>
>  (3) The interpretation of sumti tcita is straight forward, there
>      is no difference between PU tcita and ZAhO tcita:
>
>            PU   <sumti>  => in the PU   of <sumti>
>            ZAhO <sumti>  => in the ZAhO of <sumti>
>
This doesn't say much, the difference is in the going from sumti tcita
to tense, or viceversa. If you just look at the sumti tags, then you can
say they all work in the same way, whichever interpretation you choose.


>      This corresponds to the present interpretation. ZAhO refers
>      to a contour of the <sumti> it is attached to. We must,
>      however, note that it DOESN'T say that the <sumti> is in
>      the phase, just like a PU tag doesn't imply anything about
>      the tense of the <sumti>. All that the ZAhO tag says is that
>      the outer bridi is 'located' in the corresponding phase of the
>      sumti event. We are predicating the outer event, NOT the
>      sumti event.

No disagreement in what the current interpretation means.

>  **  Contrary to what I have stated in some of my previous
>      postings I am now inclined to say that a ZAhO defines
>      the contour of the outer bridi ONLY when used as a selbri
>      tcita. I'd like to interpret a ZAhO KU as a sumti tcita
>      with an elided sumti in order to avoid contradicting the
>      syntax.

The good thing about my interpretation is that you don't need to make
this decision, because either way gives you the same meaning.

>
>  **  Similarly I'd also maintain that a PU defines the tense
>      (in strict sense) of the outer bridi ONLY when used as a
>      selbri tcita.

Maybe, but the difference is in any case subtle, not radically reversed
as happens with the ZAhOs.

>
>  (4) When a PU or a ZAhO is used as a selbri tcita, it defines
>      the tense resp. the contour of the outer bridi.
>
No doubt.

>                               ****
>
>  **** I PROPOSE that -- CONTRARY to the present interpretation --
>       the 'tense' of the outer bridi is defined SOLELY with
>       a selbri tcita in order to avoid a deviant interpretation
>       of sumti tcita in the case of elided tagged sumti.

I don't think this is contrary to the present interpretation, which is
not clearly defined.

>
>       After this clean-up the sense system contains no contra-
>       dictions and the interpretations are quite intuitive --
>       at least most of them. It is, of course, always possible
>       to find counterintuitive examples -- this is possible
>       what ever the system.
>

I agree that there are no contradictions. Just special rules for the
ZAhOs that need not be there.

co'o mi'e xorxes