Re: sumti categories

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

la kolin cusku di'e

> My suggestion is that we subcategorise on a number of features, which
> need not always be specified.

If they need not be specified, they're not useful for the purpose of
forcing the sumti to take the feature that the tergismu requires.
Thus:

        mi fasnu

forces the sumti {mi} to be +event. The sentence to me makes little sense,
since I don't think events should be allowed to talk (to refer to
themselves as {mi}) but

        spuda mi

doesn't make {mi} an event, because (according to the list) the x2 of {spuda}
need not be one.

> Most terbri are -set but unspecified for mass

Is any terbri unspecified for set? Probably not, in which case +/-set
is a useful category for this purpose.

+/-mass is not a category in the sense that I intend, because the
terbri will never force its "massness" on the sumti filling it.

        le plise cu gunma lei selci

makes sense, even though {le plise} remains -mass, and {lei selci} +mass.

My categories, in your notation reduce to something like:

dacti   -set -abstract -proposition
fasnu   -set +abstract -proposition
fatci   -set +abstract +proposition
namcu   -set -abstract -proposition +something-that-dacti-isn't
selcusku -set -abstract +proposition (?)
selcmima +set -abstract -proposition

I doubt there's a need to name all possible combinations, because
I don't think any place is for instance +set +proposition

> I am certain that there are further subdivisions of +abstract (eg +/-event,
> +/-concept) but I have not worked out in detail what they are. I doubt
> very much though whether even they are mutually exclusive.

Of course, there will always be subdivisions, but the only ones that matter
for this purpose are the mutually exclusive ones.

> I think there are probably other features not in either of these categories
> (eg +/- animate, +/-personal) but I'm not sure.

+/-animate is not useful for this, because for instance, the x2 of {viska}
can be either. I'm not sure about +/-personal. I think many gismu allow
for the ambiguity (e.g. the x1 of gasnu)

> Once all terbri, gadri, sucma'o, sumga'ima'o (eg LUhI) and a few others
> have their features specified, it will be possible to check a sentence for
> category consistency.

Yes, but if the vocabulary requires the distinction sometimes, but not other
times, then it will be much harder to accept that the place should force
the category on whatever fills it.

Jorge