WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti > methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti

methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti


posts: 2388

 


> On Apr 5, 2005 1:09 PM, John E Clifford
> wrote:
> > A bit more systematically, when a blank is
> > challenged, the speaker — who probably left
> it
> > blank witout thinking about it, maybe even
> with
> > realizing there was a place to fill — should
> > consider these questions and answer
> accordingly.
>
> In my view, we must distinguish two situations:
> 1) The speaker is an ideal fluent speaker with
> full
> command of the language.
> 2) The speaker is a current less than fluent
> speaker
> with struggling command of the language.
>
> I don't dispute that your recipee probably
> applies for 2.
> But a fluent speaker with full command of the
> langusge
> will not leave a blank without realizing there
> was a place
> to fill. If fluent speakers do that, then in
> fact there is no
> such place to fill: the predicate has lost that
> place if it ever
> had it.

I think that this amounts to saying that there
has almost never been a fluent speaker, since I
think this happens all the time. Alternatively,
it amounts to saying that most places after the
second are not real. In that case, bpfk has a
serious problem in revising the whole gismu list
(at least). I suppose they are up to it, since
they have not stumbled in mucking about with
various cmavo subsets.

Of course even fluent speakers will
> sometimes
> misuse a word, but in that case when challenged
> they
> will retract the word and replace it with a
> more appropriate
> one, maybe even replace {broda} with {broda be
> zi'o}, but
> knowing that in that case {broda} by itself was
> inappropriate.
>
> Let me illustrate with an example. {jbena} in
> the gi'uste is
> defined as:
>
> x1 is born to x2 at time x3 birthday and
> place x4 birthplace;
>
> Someone who has not incorporated the full place
> structure
> might naively say something like: {le mi
> selfamti pu jbena
> ca le prulamdei} intending to say "my
> niece/nephew was born
> yesterday". But taking the place structure of
> {jbena} seriously,
> the tenses there make very little sense. If the
> niece/nephew was
> born on April 4, 2005, that fact was true
> yesterday, it is true
> today and will be true at any other time. So:
>
> le selfamti cu jbena fi li 2005;04;04 ca le
> prulamdei
> le selfamti cu jbena fi li 2005;04;04 ca le
> cabdei
> le selfamti cu jbena fi li 2005;04;04 ca le
> bavlamdei
> le selfamti cu jbena fi li 2005;04;04 ze'e
> ku

So the knowledgable person would say today
(050405) {le sefamti cu jbena fi le prulamdei}

> The tense gives no useful information to
> someone who takes
> the place structure seriously. Of course what
> was meant was
> to use some other predicate that refers to the
> act of birth, which
> did happen yesterday and not today or tomorrow,
> and not to
> some abstract relationship between two people,
> a date and
> a place. {jbena} is bloated.

It probably was picked for the line on all thiose
documents that ask exactly those questions. In
that context it is not bloated. It is probably
not about the event at all (which needs another
gismu perhaps — or, if we use jbena for this,
then we need a lujvo to get those usual places
back in).

Without an x3 and
> x4 it would be
> a more useful relationship, that could be used
> for the actual act
> of birth (and also tagged with a date {de'i} or
> site {tu'i} if so
> desired.)
>
> A fluent speaker that accepts {jbena} to have
> four places
> will simply not say {le mi selfamti pu jbena ca
> le prulamdei}.
>
Right, see above.

 


Show posts: