Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Rob Zook Tue, 06 Oct 1998 20:51:55 -0500 At 07:34 PM 10/6/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Quotes from: Rob Zook >Date: Monday, October 5, 1998 4:22 PM > >> Saul Epstein wrote: >> >> > Quotes From: Rob Zook >> > Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 12:42 PM >> > >> > >Otherwise, as beneficial as ambiguity may be in some instances, >> > >a word with -he seems too ambiguous. >> > >> > Of course. Unless you just mean "in," which happens often enough. >> >> The word "in" has at least 10 different meanings, most of which are >> only apparent by the context. I mean specifically that even the >> meaning "within the limits or bounds of" seems too ambiguous >> without reference to time, space, or no-space. But perhaps I'm just >> being overly picky here. > >Unless one aims to make Vulcan capable of context-free, inambiguous >utterances, I think you might be being a little picky. I don't really >have room to make such accusations, however. ;-) I only meant that >there may be plenty of times when unmodified "in" is sufficient >reference. Just as there are definitely plenty of times when it >isn't. I don't think it's possible to make a totally context-free inambiguous utterance, but I think we can come closer to that ideal by having as little ambiguity in grammar as possible. By that I mean one should be able to resolve the correct grammar of a sentance unambiguously. >> > Yes. I still don't see the, uh, semantic difference. When >> > translated into English, the initiation moment of the speech can >> > come out as a noun or a verb. The tense of the sentence is >> > independent from the concurrence of the action thereto, and from >> > any referred-to phase of any of the participant entities. >> > (Excluding, in normal circumstances, any combinations that would >> > defy time.) >> >> Something is going on here that's really unclear to me. You keep >> saying, "yes, but I don't understand". That seems really confusing. >> I'm saying that there may be no simple way to translate this into >> English. > >Yes. ;-) Sorry, but what I think I've said is more like, "Yes, but >that isn't what I was talking about" alternating with, "Yes, but I >don't see what difference that makes." In this particular instance, >your translations and your chart both confirm, for me, that I >understand the distinction you're making, and that it seems, to me, >to be the distinction between two different ways of looking at the >same thing. Probably as an emphasis technique. *shrug* Certainly emphasis plays a part in this, but they seem pretty clearly deliniated to me. >> > >Now the "occurred during" comes from the aspects -zo- and >> > >-cu- and locative -he occurring on the entity word kahs'wan. >> > >> > Beautiful! And I mean that. I very much want to avoid getting >> > so complicated in an introductory grammar... >> >> Oh, of course. For most part I think one or the other, either >> concurrency or "phase" would suffice. But at last one of them >> seems necessary to get beyond baby talk. But for just baby talk >> tense seems all that's necessary. >> >> So perhaps we should mention both in the introductory text, but >> not mention how they work when mixed? > >I had in mind describing both and mentioning that they could be >combined, but not describing how. That description would then be part >of an advanced text. OK, that sounds fine. >> For example, one Vulcan might say to the other: "When did you talk >> about quantum physics in your physics lecture yesterday?" Then the >> response might be "At the beginning of my lecture", in which case >> the most precise and yet still simple response might be > th'praculahe> "initiation phase in my past speech". > [...] >> While if the Vulcan was asked how long did he speak about quantum >> physics he might say, the "beginning interval >> of my past speech". > >Technically, these answers are permissible truncations of full >sentences: > > "(I spoke about QP) ? the beginning of my speech." > <(lehe th'pra[COMPLETE]la [about] QP-he) th'pra[?]lahe> > >where the question mark is..,something I'm not clear on. Is the >difference between the two answers that one specifies a point in time >while the other specifies a range? Well yes. Maybe I'm not seeing clearly the same signifigance of what you're calling concurrency. I see it as just a simple range (which roughly means an *interval* too, hint, hint). >Because neither performs the same >function as the marker for complete concurrence... Maybe your >staggering difference seems insignificant to me because there's an >even more staggering difference between everything you're talking >about and what I'm talking about... That seems entirely too probable :) >> We have to keep in mind that your average Vulcan likely has the >> equivalent to a doctorate in the philosophy of science, and several >> bachlorates in specific sciences, arts and/or engineering >> technologies. > >Mm. I guess I have a somewhat more diverse picture of Vulcan. Not >important... Well, I keep wondering about things like would Vulcan have garbage men? Waiters (er.,by which I probably mean the "hash slinger" variety)? All those boring pointless work jobs seem like things Vulcans would automate where ever possible. >> The difference I see hinges on this: what is being related to the >> tense moment, an instantaneous point in time ("phase") or an >> interval of time (concurrency)? At least that's what your diagram >> indicates to me. That concurrency speaks of how intervals of time >> overlap with the interval of the tense moment. > >Well, we may be looking at different differences. Concurrence, as I'd >like to define it, has the special purpose of relating a sentence's >action to its tense. Whether either is a point or a range will vary >with the topic and the nature of the discussion. You seem to be >describing the specification of parts of actions or processes, either >as points or ranges, for whatever purpose. That's important, >worthwhile. It's NOT what I'm talking about, though it complements >it. Well they seem really similar to me, can you describe what your talking about a little more clearly (i,e. emphesising the differences I'm not currently seeing)? >> > >How does one define the boundaries >> > >of the tense moment? >> > >> > Contextually. Tense is fluid and imprecise, which is largely why >> > Concurrence exists. Vulcan is more precise than English, since >> > it has more tenses. But from one sentence to the next, present >> > may mean "right now," or "today," or "this year." Past and >> > Future, potentially extending ad infinitum in their respective >> > directions, are even less exact. >> >> Maybe I should rephrase that, can you give me a "text book example" >> definition of "tense moment"? > >Not without a textbook. The only appropriate one I ever had was >excruciatingly dense and dull, and the bookstore wouldn't buy it >back. If I can find it, I'll quote you some gibberish. *grin* gibberish r. us = linguistics text book material? Rob Z.