Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time
Rob Zook 
Mon, 05 Oct 1998 12:32:08 -0500

Saul Epstein wrote:
> 
> Quotes from: Rob Zook <lalaith*unicom,net>
> Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 2:12 PM

> >I thing both you and I look at my first catagory then, albeit from
> >opposite ends. In which case, I don't think the meaning of -zo- needs
> >to change at all, since it seems to correspond to what you mean by
> >incomplete initial and what I called (from things you previously
> >wrote about aspects) imperfect initial.
> 
> Mm-hmm. About the terminology: I've decided the traditional just gets
> in the way of people understanding, unless they happen to be familiar
> with it already. So I'm developing new terminology that I hope seems
> better motivated.

Well, ok, I'll certainly buy that as I know it confused me, at least
until you explained it to me. However, what differences does it make
if someone new has to learn traditional terminology or your new
terminology?
 

> >>> Now lets allow that act of writing some duration. What if I
> >>> say that sentance after I begin writing the invitation but
> >>> before the process of writing has ended:
> >>>
> >>> lihe th'k'tvezohi vdik'wawjehi
> >>> "I wrote the invitation (and am still writing it)"
> >>
> >>As I meant it to operate, this sentence would mean, roughly "I have
> >>written the invitation," possibly implying "I am even now signing my
> >>name at the bottom," or some such. In other words, the action does
> >>not continue  significantly beyond the moment of speech.
> >
> >Why truncate the original meaning of -zo-?
> 
> Because the meaning you meant is covered by what I'd now call
> continuous concurrence: action begins before the tense and not ended
> within the tense (at least "so far," in the case of the present). If
> you think that matches -zo- better, that's what we can use for it.

Ok, well in that case I do think that ZC -zo- probably does match
your continuous better than the final.
 

> >>> Surak lihe owkja 'Ankh'khehe
> >>> "Surak in past he exist before, during and after the time of
> >>> the past WAR"
> >>> (gloss) "Surak existed around the time of the past WAR"
> >>>
> >>> The temporal aspect changes the object from a plain old entity
> >>> to a temporal location.
> >>
> >>This could just as easily be
> >>
> >>     lihe ow'ticuxoi 'ankh'he surak
> >>     past he-living   war-in  Surak
> >>     "Surak was living during the War."
> >
> >Hmmm but without something indicating the tense of 'ankh it could
> >just as easily mean "Surak was living inside the War", or "in the
> >midsts of the War". The -he partical by itself seems really, really
> >indefinite.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but if you mean that it can't be
> told that the War occured in the past, that's implied by <lihe>. If
> his action of living during the War is a past action, the War during
> which he was living must also be past. If you mean it can't be told
> what the nature of the action's location is, that's what I saw as the
> role of the "relationship specifiers" you mentioned a while back.
> (E,g., -he is location in general, but there are lots of extra words
> analogous to prepositions that specify kinds of location. Maybe Phase
> serves much the same purpose? So, <lihe ow'ti-CONTINUOUS-xoi
> 'a-khe-nkh-he surak>?)

In the case of entity words, yes, I think that the -he should not be
used without some other aspectral word which indications the nature of
the location, using an phase or continuum word would indicate it was
a temporal location, while using a spatial prepositional word would
indicate the location was spatial.

Otherwise, as beneficial as ambiguity may be in some instances, a
a word with -he seems too ambiguous.
 

> >>> lihe th'prala Spokhi th'kahscuwanhe
> >>> "I spoke to Spock during my kahswan"
> >>>
> >>> more literally:
> >>> "in past I speak to Spock located during my kahs'wan"
> >>
> >>This may just be an unfortunate example, but I think the "during" is
> >>implied.
> >
> >Well, it probably would not make any sense using the new meaning you
> >assigned to -cu-. I probably should have come up with a new partical
> >which mean "some point inbetween the begining an the end of the
> >event", i,e. "during".
> 
> No, that's probably OK, after all. I cede -cu-, and if it's all right
> to understand Phase as serving a roughly prepositional function, your
> sentence suddenly makes perfect sense...

Roughly prepositional, yes. I don't think that prepositions are the
most efficient or effective way of indicating information about temporal 
and spatial events.

 
> >>> lihe th'prashila Spokhi th'kahscuwanhe
> >>> "I began my speech to Spock during my kahswan"
> >>>
> >>> or more literally:
> >>> "in past my begin speak to Spock located during my kahs'wan"
> >>
> >>That actually works as I meant, if -shi- is incomplete (final)
> >>concurrence. "I began (or was about) to speak..."
> >
> >But that's not quite what I meant, as the beginning refers to
> >a point in time within the action, not to the interval of the
> >action.
> 
> I don't think the difference is "real" for Vulcan. If my speculation
> that <th'prala> means both "I speak" and "my speech" is correct, then

Well, the difference seems quite real to me, but also pretty hard
to express in English.

Maybe some more diagrams can illustrate the difference better:

lihe th'prashila Spockhi th'kahscuwanhe

   -1------------------<--------TM---------]---[SM]--------1

"the initiation of my speaking action"
th'praSHIla------+
                 |
    [my kahs'wan-|-----------------]       
    ^-------+----|-----------------^
            |    V
            |   [X---my speech--]                
            |   ^-------+-------^
            |           +-------------------th'prala
            |
     th'kahsCUwanhe
"the duration of the temporal event my kahs'wan"

TM=Tense Moment

X indicates the instantaneous point where the initiation of the speaking
action occurs which corresponds to th'prashila.

So the point in time when the speaking began occurred within the
time when the kahs'wan occurred. Regardless of how the interval of time 
of the speaking or the kahs'wan event overlaps with the tense moment. 

We could add some concurrencies to both the action and the temporal
reference entity and say:

lihe th'prazoshila spokhi th'kahszocuwanhe

This would be even more difficult to translate into English:

"in the past, the initiation of my speaking to spock (which began
 before now and ended before now) occurred during my kahs'wan (which
began and ended before now)."

Now the "occurred during" comes from the aspects -zo- and -cu-
and locative -he occurring on the entity word kahs'wan.



> >>I don't think these are incompatible, I'd just like to
> >>distinguish them better. We could assign all but -zo- to the
> >>Phase category, including -cu-, and use others for Concurrence:
> >>
> >> -zo-   final (was "incomplete (initial)")
> >> -fu-   complete
> >> -dhe-  continuous
> >> -go-   initial (was "incomplete (final)")
> >> -n~a-  indeterminate
> >
> >Make -zo- an initial indeterminate, a new partical for final, and
> >perhaps a final indeterminate partical and then it sounds grand.
> 
> Mm, let's see.
> 
>      -dhe-  final concurrence
>           action's end adjoins or intersects tense's beginning
> 
>      -fu-   complete concurrence
>           action occurs entirely within tense
> 
>      -zo-   continuous concurrence
>           action begins before tense and ends after
>           (or sometimes after speech-moment if present tense)
> 
>      -go-   initial concurrence
>           action's beginning intersects or adjoins tense's end
>           (or sometimes speech-moment if present tense)
> 
>      -n~a-  indeterminate concurrence
>           action occurs within tense
>           but with unstated beginning or ending
> 
> In other words, Final locates the end of an action within a tense
> without determining the beginning of the action. Initial locates the
> beginning of an action within a tense without determining the end of
> the action. Complete and Continuous locate the beginning and end of an
> action, within or beyond a tense respectively. Indeterminate locates
> the action but neither beginning nor end. It may be that this should
> be the "default" concurrence.

What about if the action begins and ends entirely before the tense
moment? Can such a thing even happen? How does one define the boundaries
of the tense moment?



Rob Z.