Event contours and ZAhO tcita

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

>Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1993 01:25:36 -0400
>From: Veijo Vilva <VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

>   It isn't a question of adding a sumti place but inserting
>   sumti into a place which just has been made visible

>> 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.

>here the original ought to read

>   __mi dunda le cakla do [bai] zo'e__

>because all the sumti places are there even if they are not
>expressed in the definition of "dunda". The question of coersion
>is left open in the definition but the possibility is not excluded
>-- a "bai noda" is required if we are to state explicitly that
>there is no coersion involved.

>The "bai" is just like another FA which makes it possible to
>fill one of the uncountably large number of potential sumti
>places -- which could have been retained in the definition
>had we considered them important enough -- without specifying
>all the intervening ones.

This proposal has been made before, long ago, and I still don't buy it
(assuming you mean what I think you do, that all BAI places are really
somehow implicitly there in every bridi).  I mean, consider {mi cadzu le
loldi le tuple}.  Any notions what fills the {fi'o cakla} place which you
claim is there?  Where's the chocolate?  It doesn't seem to work for me to
say that all those aleph-null places (every possible selbri has at least
one BAI-equivalent {fi'o} clause) are present in every bridi.

Then again, I have to admit to not following this discussion terribly
carefully, so I'm probably coming out of left field here.

~mark