Time and the Predicate (Part 2b Re: New project) Saul Epstein Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:42:08 -0600 Sorry, I left off most of this section in my first attempt... ---------- 0633 - Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:26:43 -0500 Hello again, everyone. A while back, Rob and I spent several months trying to explain certain things to each other about how one could talk about time in a sentence. We discussed intermittently, sometimes on the list but mostly off. And we did eventually make some progress, in that I think by the time we got tired of it we each had some idea what the other had been trying to say. Here, I hope, is what could form the simple core of a system by which a ZC speaker indicates the location in time of a sentence's action, relative to the moment of speech. I say simple core because there's a lot more to be said on the subject. I'd just like to get this much laid out and ratified first. The core consists of two parts. The first is a set of words that indicate a general period of time relative to the moment of speech. One of these words, when used, usually stands at the beginning of a sentence. lihe past action related to some time fairly long ago lehe precessive action related to some time fairly recent lahe present action related to moment of speech luhe successive action related to some time fairly soon lohe future action related to some time fairly far off These words give a sentence its tense. I said "when used" above because a sentence can be assumed to be in the present tense if no tense is explicitly given. The second part is a set of infixes that locate the action more precisely with relation to the moment indicated by the tense. These are inserted directly into the word naming the action itself, after the first vowel. -zo- incomplete (initial) action begins before tense-moment and ends just before tense-moment, just as tense-moment begins, or early during tense-moment -pe- complete action begins and ends within tense-moment -cu- continuous action begins before tense-moment and ends after tense-moment -xe- incomplete (final) action begins late during tense-moment, just as tense-moment ends, or just after tense-moment, and ends after tense-moment -mu- indeterminate action coincides with tense-moment, but beginning and ending are uncertain } } "I had seen." } } "I saw." } } "I was seeing." } } "I [began|was about] to see." <(lahe) th'nizokh> "I have seen." <(lahe) th'nipekh> "I see." <(lahe) th'nicukh> "I am seeing." <(lahe) th'nixekh> "I [begin|am about] to see." } } "I will have seen." } } "I will see." } } "I will be seeing." } } "I will [begin|be about] to see." (Note: the English glosses are approximates, and don't exactly match the way these kinds of structures are used in casual speech.) ---------- 0636 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Rob Zook Sun, 04 Oct 1998 03:27:26 -0500 At 10:26 PM 10/1/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >The second part is a set of infixes that locate the action more >precisely with relation to the moment indicated by the tense. These >are inserted directly into the word naming the action itself, after >the first vowel. I find my self a little confused about the choices. I suppose since all of these appear in the ZC. I also wonder if that means you don't want to adopt any of the remaining additions I proposed or if you just got tired of waiting for me to bring it up again? :) Some of these descriptions do not seem to match up to the ZC descriptions. > -zo- incomplete (initial) > action begins before tense-moment and ends just > before tense-moment, just as tense-moment begins, > or early during tense-moment -zo- appears in the ZC as "Action in past still going on". Which means that the end point is not really determinate, although I think we might assume that it finishes sometime during the tense moment, although I'm not sure how safe an assumption that is. > -pe- complete > action begins and ends within tense-moment This does not seem to be the same as the ZC either: "Action in past finished (terminated)". This almost seems like a plain past tense except it refers to the action as an event or process, i,e. with a end point (and presumedly a beginning). So I took this to mean that the tense moment occurs after the end point of the action. > -cu- continuous > action begins before tense-moment and ends after > tense-moment ZC has "Action/State to be contintued", which seems just about the same thing as you said. > -xe- incomplete (final) > action begins late during tense-moment, just as > tense-moment ends, or just after tense-moment, > and ends after tense-moment ZC has "Action/State to be terminated". This seems to me that the tense moment occurs within the action itself. The action is still going on but approaching an known endpoint. > -mu- indeterminate > action coincides with tense-moment, but beginning > and ending are uncertain ZC has "Continuous present" which seems very close to the way you described it. I still think we can best organize these in two parts, -zo- belonging to a class of particals which refer to the position of the tense moment in relation to the period of time, or interval during which the action takes place. The rest belong together and seem to describe the position of the tense moment in relation to the interval during which the action takes place, when considered as a process or event with general stages. All of these I think refer to the "aspect" of the sentance? How about we call the two sets of particals Interval Aspects and the Event Aspects? Although an action obviously seems like a process, I see no reason why we cannot look at entities as processes as well, so while interval aspects, so I think event aspects could apply to both. Normally when we speak of an action and an object in a sentance those both get treated temporally as a single instance in time complete unto itself. If we were to graph them, as a set of single dots on the time line. However that can abstract things too generally to be useful in some contexts, and we need our words to more closely match the observered world where an action consists of a process, or an event. An event which has a beginning, a middle and an end. An action consists of an event which has a measurable duration. We can treat it as a point or dot in time when the duration has no meaning for us, but sometimes we need to talk about the duration, or interval of time during which the action takes place or the object exists. So we can have Interval Aspects like these: -zo- before and during (imperfect - initial) -khe?- before, during and after (inclusive progressive) -dza?- during and after (imperfect - final) -cu- during (perfect)* -du?- before and after, but not during (exclusive progressive) Each of which we can view on a time line like so (where -1 means the infinite/indefinite past, 0 the Tense Moment and 1 the infinite/ indefinite future): TM -1--------0--------1 imperfect - initial ?<----0>? inclusive progressive ?<----0---->? imperfect - final ?<0---->? perfect <0> exclusive progressive ?<--->0<--->? So each of these interval aspects refer to the duration, beginning middle and end of an action, in relation to the tense moment. Sometimes we need to look at a little finer resolution on our action or entities interval of time. We may need to point out relative positions within this interval of time as if it were a process with definite stages from start to end. Event Aspects could look like this: -ba?- pre-initiation - just before expected start of an event -shi?- initiation - the beginning of an event -no?- post-initiation - just after expected start of an event -cu- duration - an interval within the event -mu- continuative - any instantaneous point within an event -vja?- suspension - pause during the event -gjo?- resumption - resumption of the event after a pause -xe- pre-completion - just prior to the completion of an event -pe- completion - the end of an event. -di?- post-completion - just after the completion of an event The question marks indicate particals which I suggest we use for the aspect in question. Particals without the question marks are the ones which Saul mentioned and which appear in the ZC. So we can have a simple tense which describes an observable situation only in the most general way with regard to time: Surak lihe owkja (literally) "Surak in past he exist" (gloss) "Surak existed" The duration of the process of Surak existin occured wholey before now. Let's look at the situation were I write an invitation to some one, I could just say: th'k'tvehi vdik'wawjehi "I write the invitation" or: lihe th'k'tvehi vdik'wawjehi "I wrote the invitation" 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)" That example shows how an interval aspect could apply to an action, harkening back to the sentance on Surak let us see how we could apply an event aspect to the object of the sentance and how it changes the meaning of the object. We could make this more complex by saying giving some entity with a known temporal location as a reference point in time to show when Surak existed: 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. Some more examples, lets say I speak to Spock: th'prala Spokhi "I speak to spock" But when did I speak to Spock? lihe th'prala Spokhi "I spoke to Spock" 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" 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" Hopefully this makes my past post on this a little more clear. ---------- 0637 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Sun, 4 Oct 1998 11:06:43 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Sunday, October 4, 1998 3:27 AM > At 10:26 PM 10/1/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > > >The second part is a set of infixes that locate the action > >more precisely with relation to the moment indicated by the > >tense. These are inserted directly into the word naming the > >action itself, after > >the first vowel. > > I find my self a little confused about the choices. I suppose > since all of these appear in the ZC. I also wonder if that > means you don't want to adopt any of the remaining additions > I proposed or if you just got tired of waiting for me to bring > it up again? :) Neither. This is just to lay a foundation so that everyone interested in translating or creating sentences has something to work from. Hence my characterization of it as a "simple core...,because there's a lot more to be said on the subject," and my choice of title "Locating a _Sentence's_Action_ in Time." > Some of these descriptions do not seem to match up to the ZC > descriptions. Actually, none of them match up. This system represents a fairly radical departure from the original. The only commonality is that the ZC describes these infixes as "aspectral," and I'm using them to express some relative parts of what grammarians call aspect. And I adapted the original infixes for the purpose just to have this revised system better anchored in the original. I tried to match them as well as I could, given the fact that I'm trying to describe different things. I can see where that would be confusing. > > -xe- incomplete (final) > > action begins late during tense-moment, just as > > tense-moment ends, or just after tense-moment, > > and ends after tense-moment This should have been --, by the way. My mistake. > I still think we can best organize these in two parts, -zo- > belonging to a class of particals which refer to the position > of the tense moment in relation to the period of time, or > interval during which the action takes place. > > The rest belong together and seem to describe the position of > the tense moment in relation to the interval during which the > action takes place, when considered as a process or event with > general stages. > > All of these I think refer to the "aspect" of the sentance? > How about we call the two sets of particals Interval Aspects > and the Event Aspects? I have no objections to such a division. The aspect I want to express here is the relation of the action's interval (or event?) to the tense-moment, and not the other way around. That is, with the tense-moment considered the larger, less precisely-defined period, and the aspect considered a more precisely-defined period relative thereto. I don't know which, if either, of your categories that corresponds to. Perhaps the first, which you describe containing only -zo-. If that's the case, we need only find new infixes for the other 4. > Although an action obviously seems like a process, I see no > reason why we cannot look at entities as processes as well, > so while interval aspects, so I think event aspects could > apply to both. I have come around to the same position. > So we can have Interval Aspects like these: [...] > Each of which we can view on a time line like so (where -1 > means the infinite/indefinite past, 0 the Tense Moment and 1 > the infinite/indefinite future): > > TM > -1--------0--------1 > imperfect - initial ?<----0>? > inclusive progressive ?<----0---->? > imperfect - final ?<0---->? > perfect <0> > exclusive progressive ?<--->0<--->? Maybe this will help... , [tense-moment] -1-----[-----]------1 incomplete - initial { <----->[-----] { <---[->---] continuous <-[-----]-> incomplete - final { [---<-]---> { [-----]<-----> complete [<--->] indeterminate ?[-----]? with the question marks indicating uncertainty. Incomplete in this context is not meant to describe an action unfinished in a sequential, temporal sense, but rather one that is not whole within the tense-moment. > So each of these interval aspects refer to the duration, > beginning middle and end of an action, in relation to the > tense moment. > > Sometimes we need to look at a little finer resolution on our > action or entities interval of time. We may need to point out > relative positions within this interval of time as if it were > a process with definite stages from start to end. I do think these are two different things. Perhaps we can call the one Concurrence and the other Phase? > Let's look at the situation were I write an invitation to some > one, I could just say: > > lihe th'k'tvehi vdik'wawjehi > "I wrote the invitation" I think with vdi-, as I intended it, would mean "invited one." would still be "the/an invitation" or "to invite" or "inviting" (as an adjective). > 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. > 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." > 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. > 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..." 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 ---------- 0638 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:20:38 -0500 Quotes from: Saul Epstein Date: Sunday, October 4, 1998 11:06 AM > Quotes from: Rob Zook > Date: Sunday, October 4, 1998 3:27 AM > > > 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. Sorry, I missed the tense there. That should be "I _had_ written the invitation," not "have." Possibly implying "I was even then (in the fairly distant past) signing my name at the bottom." ---------- 0639 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Rob Zook Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:53:14 -0500 At 11:06 AM 10/4/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Quotes from: Rob Zook >Date: Sunday, October 4, 1998 3:27 AM > >> Some of these descriptions do not seem to match up to the ZC >> descriptions. > >Actually, none of them match up. This system represents a fairly >radical departure from the original. The only commonality is that the >ZC describes these infixes as "aspectral," and I'm using them to >express some relative parts of what grammarians call aspect. And I >adapted the original infixes for the purpose just to have this >revised system better anchored in the original. I tried to match them >as well as I could, given the fact that I'm trying to describe >different things. I can see where that would be confusing. Well, yes, since I thought you wanted to keep things as close to the original ZC as possible. >> I still think we can best organize these in two parts, -zo- >> belonging to a class of particals which refer to the position >> of the tense moment in relation to the period of time, or >> interval during which the action takes place. >> >> The rest belong together and seem to describe the position of >> the tense moment in relation to the interval during which the >> action takes place, when considered as a process or event with >> general stages. >> >> All of these I think refer to the "aspect" of the sentance? >> How about we call the two sets of particals Interval Aspects >> and the Event Aspects? > >I have no objections to such a division. The aspect I want to express >here is the relation of the action's interval (or event?) to the >tense-moment, and not the other way around. That is, with the >tense-moment considered the larger, less precisely-defined period, >and the aspect considered a more precisely-defined period relative >thereto. I don't know which, if either, of your categories that >corresponds to. Perhaps the first, which you describe containing only >-zo-. If that's the case, we need only find new infixes for the other >4. 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. >> So we can have Interval Aspects like these: > [...] >> Each of which we can view on a time line like so (where -1 >> means the infinite/indefinite past, 0 the Tense Moment and 1 >> the infinite/indefinite future): >> >> TM >> -1--------0--------1 >> imperfect - initial ?<----0>? >> inclusive progressive ?<----0---->? >> imperfect - final ?<0---->? >> perfect <0> >> exclusive progressive ?<--->0<--->? > >Maybe this will help... > >, [tense-moment] > -1-----[-----]------1 > incomplete - initial { <----->[-----] > { <---[->---] > continuous <-[-----]-> > incomplete - final { [---<-]---> > { [-----]<-----> > complete [<--->] > indeterminate ?[-----]? > >with the question marks indicating uncertainty. Incomplete in this >context is not meant to describe an action unfinished in a >sequential, temporal sense, but rather one that is not whole within >the tense-moment. > >> So each of these interval aspects refer to the duration, >> beginning middle and end of an action, in relation to the >> tense moment. >> >> Sometimes we need to look at a little finer resolution on our >> action or entities interval of time. We may need to point out >> relative positions within this interval of time as if it were >> a process with definite stages from start to end. > >I do think these are two different things. Perhaps we can call the >one Concurrence and the other Phase? I don't suppose it really matters what we call them as long as the word points to the underlying concepts adequately. >> Let's look at the situation were I write an invitation to some >> one, I could just say: >> >> lihe th'k'tvehi vdik'wawjehi >> "I wrote the invitation" > >I think with vdi-, as I intended it, would mean >"invited one." would still be "the/an invitation" or "to >invite" or "inviting" (as an adjective). OK, I wasn't sure about that. So would mean "I wrote the invitation" or "in past I write the invitation". >> 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-? I think we can expand these concurrence aspects even further and still retain the original meaning of -zo-: -1-----[-----]------1 indeterminate ?[-----]? initial indeterminate(-zo-) <---[-----]? final indeterminate ?[-----]---> >> 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. >> 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". >> 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. Those Phases, or what I called event aspects, refer to specific point instances (with one exception) inside the action or the temporal lifetime of an entity: 2___3_____ 7_____________8_____10 _ _ _ _12 1___| |_6_| |_ _ _9 |_____11 |__ ?5? ?------4--------? 0----------------------------------1 (The entire duration of an action) 1. A point just before the start of an action (pre-initiation) 2. A point at the start of an action (initiation) 3. A point just after the start of an action (post-initiation) 4. An interval during the action (duration) 5. A point within an action of some (continuous) indeterminate position. 6. A point were an action temporarily halts (suspension) 7. A point where an action resumes (resumption) 8. A point just before an end of the action (pre-completion) 9. A point where the action ends before expected (premature completion) 10. A point at the end of an action (completion)' 11. A point just beyond the end of an action (post-completion) 12. A point where the action ends after expected (postmature completion) >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. ---------- 0642 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:27:46 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 2:12 PM >At 11:06 AM 10/4/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > >>And I >>adapted the original infixes for the purpose just to have this >>revised system better anchored in the original. I tried to match >>them as well as I could, given the fact that I'm trying to describe >>different things. I can see where that would be confusing. > >Well, yes, since I thought you wanted to keep things as close to the >original ZC as possible. This was as close as I felt I could get, given what I was trying to do. >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. >>I do think these are two different things. Perhaps we can call the >>one Concurrence and the other Phase? > >I don't suppose it really matters what we call them as long as the >word points to the underlying concepts adequately. Exactly. The word "aspect" in grammatical contexts is perfectly clear to me, but I realized rather suddenly a short time ago that it doesn't really match broader usage. I think that's enough of a problem to consider abandoning the term in favor of something that might be clearer. >>> Let's look at the situation were I write an invitation to some >>> one, I could just say: >>> >>> lihe th'k'tvehi vdik'wawjehi >>> "I wrote the invitation" >> >>I think with vdi-, as I intended it, would mean >>"invited one." would still be "the/an invitation" or "to >>invite" or "inviting" (as an adjective). > >OK, I wasn't sure about that. So >would mean "I wrote the invitation" or "in past I write the >invitation". Yup. >>> 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. >>> 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 . 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 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... >>> 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 means both "I speak" and "my speech" is correct, then lihe th'pra-INITIAL-la spokhi th'kah-cu-swan-he past 1S-[speech|to speak]-INIT Spock-ACC 1S-Kahswan-DUR-LOC "My speech-initiation to Spock (was) during my Kahswan." OR "I began-to-speak to Spock during my Kahswan." >Those Phases, or what I called event aspects, refer to specific >point instances (with one exception) inside the action or the >temporal lifetime of an entity: Yes. That's partly why I felt no pressing need to include it in my original post, which was about something else. ;-) >>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. ---------- 0644 - 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 > 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 . 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, '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 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? ---------- 0645 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Mon, 5 Oct 1998 14:26:21 -0500 Quotes From: Rob Zook Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 12:42 PM >Saul Epstein wrote: > >> 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? Eh, well, my hope is that the new terminology will be far more "transparent" as is so often said among technofolk. That is, by choosing terms with an eye for broader, contemporary usage, I hope that understanding will be possible with less explanation. >> >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. Check. >> 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, > 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. Of course. Unless you just mean "in," which happens often enough. >> 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. Sure, I was just comparing the function. >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. 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.) >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. Beautiful! And I mean that. I very much want to avoid getting so complicated in an introductory grammar... >> 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? Of course. One has two options. If the action ends just a while before the tense, Final concurrence is appropriate. If the action ends more than a while before the tense, it's really more appropriate to shift the tense of the sentence backward, and choose a new concurrence to match. At a press conference, someone might be asked questions on a particular topic. At a certain point, she might say in response to additional questions, "I have said all I'm going to say on that topic." The questions might move on to other topics. Then a question on the declared-finished topic might be asked again. The speaker might say again, "I have said all I'm going to say on that topic." The past-ward boundary of the present tense has, in a sense, receded from the speech moment as the speech moment has proceeded toward the future-ward boundary. So long as this can be sensibly maintained, such a sentence can remain in the present tense while the action itself has final concurrence with that tense. Later in the day, or the next day, or a week later, the speaker might respond to an interviewer's question by saying, "I said all I'm going to say on that topic at last week's press conference." Since the present tense itself has now moved on, the action in question no longer has final concurrence with it, and can be referred to in the past tense. (This example attempts to get the idea across. Many English speakers will know, quite accurately, that English allows more flexibility than this, because our system for expressing concurrence is actually more complicated. This is about the best I can do without drifting into an involved discussion of English, much of which would be speculation...) >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. ---------- 0646 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Rob Zook Mon, 05 Oct 1998 16:22:42 -0500 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 > >a word with -he seems too ambiguous. > > Of course. Unless you just mean "in," which happens often enough. Well, I don't think it will be that simple in most cases. In English a lot of the grammatical structure of a sentence only become obvious looking at the entire sentence. "In" by itself can mean a number of things - there is no just plain simple "in". 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. I mean knowing that "blood in a le matya" tells me very little useful meaningful information. Is it the le matya's blood, or did the le matya eat the blood? It's too fuzzy. > >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. > > 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. However, that does not mean that in Vulcan there is no semantic difference. The overlap of the interval of the action with the tense moment, and the relationship of a particular point in time in the action, and either the tense moment or some other temporal referent seem like two staggeringly different things to me. Now are you saying what I see as a staggering difference you see as not significant? > >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. > > 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? 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 "initiation phase in my past speech". Although unless Spock was the very pedantically atypical Vulcan in his spatial and temporal references, an adult Vulcan would even more likely respond with something like: "10 minutes 20,4 seconds into my 120 minute lecture". While if the Vulcan was asked how long did he speak about quantum physics he might say, the "beginning interval of my past speech". So even with all this, I still think we're going to be talking in baby Vulcan until we can specify even more precisely events in time and space. 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. 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. While what I called the event aspect and you suggested we call "phase", refers to specific instantaneous points in an action regardless of their relationship to the tense moment (the entire set of these points is what lojban refers to as the contour of an event). > >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"? I not really sure I understand what you mean. ---------- 0656 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Tue, 6 Oct 1998 19:34:05 -0500 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. > > 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. > However, that does not mean that in Vulcan there is no semantic > difference. The overlap of the interval of the action with the > tense moment, and the relationship of a particular point in time > in the action, and either the tense moment or some other temporal > referent seem like two staggeringly different things to me. > > Now are you saying what I see as a staggering difference you see as > not significant? Well, essentially, yes. I appreciate the difference, to be sure, otherwise I doubt I would have spent hours back in the early part of this year banging my head against my keyboard trying to find words through which you could see the difference. (I'm a little startled to have suddenly succeeded.) But the concurrence of an action and its sentence's tense IMPLIES certain things about the relationship of some of that action's phases to its sentence's tense. That essential similarity lies at the root of much of my previous misunderstanding of the purpose of this whole contour business. My current -- I thought, better -- understanding motivated me to speak in terms of that similarity, because I am still tired of speaking past each other. I see Concurrence and Phase as different enough to deserve distinct morphology. If they seem so staggeringly different to you, why did you bring the latter up? Let's leave specification of parts as referents for other parts to its own chapter. > > >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. > > > > 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. > 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? 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... > 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... > 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. > > >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. ---------- 0661 - Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:04:30 -0500 From: Rob Zook Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:11 PM >At 07:34 PM 10/6/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > >>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). Ah. So, we never left square one... >>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 :) Logical propositions are governed by predicates. Every sentence has one predicate that governs the entire sentence. Tense, Concurrence, and freedom from subordination uniquely mark this "top" predicate. It is analagous to a "main" function or a "root" process. It has subroutines but no calling routines; child processes, but no parent. Tense and Concurrence (when free from subordination) locate it, not with relation to any of its children, but with relation to the system clock. And in language, the system clock is indiscrete and continually restarts at zero. I think I will hunt down that text book. I'd rather someone else be responsible for the gibberish for a while... >>> 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. Boring pointless work is the essence of certain kinds of meditation, and one never becomes too educated to benefit. It seems a more efficient use of resources and energy to incorporate such into "normal" life rather than set up self-contained monastic institutions. In the absence of stigma, doctors too would sling hash. I do agree that Vulcans would automate wherever _necessary_. But this is a topic for the main list... >>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)? It may be that the metaphorical description above is more clear in that way. If not, I suspect I have exhausted my capacity to explain, which is a personal disappointment. I will add (or repeat) that the entire business of contour seems to me to be a method for carefully relating parts of things to parts of other things. The parts may be points or intervals. I see that this can be well-used to complement indications of tense and concurrence. I don't see that it can subsume or replace such indications. >>> > >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? Heh. Not always, but often enough.. ---------- End Part 2b -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at