Re: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita

[Veijo Vilva <VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI>]

> Date:          Thu, 9 Sep 1993 11:13:54 EDT
> From:          Jorge LLambias <jorge%PHYAST.PITT.EDU@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
> Subject:       Re: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita

> > 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.

  The before/after difference is due to the way the grammar is defined
  and doesn't imply any differences.

  Actually, at the grammatical level the entities I'm refering are not
  sumti but terms. However, ignoring the termsets there are 5 types
  of terms:

       1.   placed sumti
       2.   FA tagged sumti
       3.   <modhead> sumti
       -------
       4.   <modhead> KU
       5.   NA KU

    where <modhead> is a (tense, BAI etc.) tag

  Now, 1-3 are sumti of one type or another and 4&5 are interpreted
  presently as floating selbri tcita.

  I have never felt quite comfortable with these floating selbri tcita.
  They have been used mainly to shift the emphasis, e.g.

              naku mi klama

  The same result with even more emphasis can be obtained with

              na klama fa mi

  I think the latter structure is much more intuitive and doesn't
  lead to mush at the <term> level.

  The other situation {naku} has been used is in logical clauses
  where it has some merit. I think, however, that this could be
  handled in some cleaner way which would permit unifying the
  syntax/semantics at term level.

    co'o mi'e veion

------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi