Re: [Ladekwa] gedefyu to - Latejami messages

I don't agree. Your "vigicambambe" has P and F, but only the focus, the "first page", should be given. I'd say "vigicambumbe" (F-d [P]).

But the question is, how can we define the result/interpretation? Natural languages use a preposition like "like", or use an instrumental case. We don't have A/P/F/R structures (R - result), although deontic disjuncts remind me of that: the speaker interprets a situation as, for example, necessary. The R-argument is "necessity".

I think, I had a similar question, once, when I asked how to say "He called me a friend". Back then I also had difficulty with the A/P/F structure.

One atempt to answer this can be to make a noun phrase: the page (i. e.) "text".

Sya vigicambumbe jofi babyeku (i. e.) "text" zawtwamu bufi sa La{LS}se.

But that's not always truely what one wants to say. Imagine an english writing that reads "time flies like an arrow". (This sentence is an authentic example as far as I know.) A computer might misread it "flies of time love a specific arrow". So how can we say that:

A computer reads the english sentence (i. e.) "time flies like an arrow" (for) "flies of time love a specific arrow".

The interpretation "flies of time love a specific arrow" must be linked to the verb, as it's the reading that causes this interpretation. We already deal with results, if we have a prefix meaning "mis-" (we have it, haven't we?). If that "mis" means "mistake", and we specify "mistake" as "flies of time love a specific arrow", we get

A computer reads the english sentence (i. e.) "time flies like an arrow" (for) mistake (i. e.) "flies of time love a specific arrow".

A computer reads the english sentence (i. e.) "time flies like an arrow" mis.

A computer misreads the english sentence (i. e.) "time flies like an arrow".

If we resubstitute "mis" with: mistake (i. e.) "flies of time love an arrow", we get:

A computer mistake(i. e.)"flies of time love an arrow"-reads the english sentence (i. e.) "time flies like an arrow".

Keeping this in mind a sentence like "you must go" would something like:

[The deictic speaker] necessity-says that you go.

You must go.

So, deontic disjuncts and "mis" already deal with interpretations/results. I'm very convinced that there is the necessity of an argument structure that includes explicit (non-deictic) interpretation/result, because otherwise sentences like "the sign reads "stop"" (the sign "stop"-reads) and "he called me a friend" (he "friend"-called me) cannot work, unless we use a case tag, which, I think, would be brute force.

Who is that LS-person anyway?

Regards,

Stephan/Stefo

----- Original Message -----

From: MorphemeAddict@hidden.email

To: Ladekwa@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:36 PM

Subject: Re: [Ladekwa] gedefyu to

In a message dated 10/16/2005 4:38:22 PM Central Standard Time, sts@hidden.email writes:

vigica = read
mba = A/P/F-d
mbe = middle voice
jofi = page
babyeku = first
zawtwa = in
bufi = diary, log

hm... I don't get it, sorry.

Bye,
Stefo

Sya vigicambambe jofi babyeku zawtwamu bufi sa La{LS}se "text".

sya vigicambambe
  jofi babyeku zawtwamu
      bufi sa
         La{LS}se
  "text"

"Vigica" is 'read' (AP-s). The person reading is AP. To add a direct object, I originally added "-mpa", so it's A/P-d. But the agent is unexpressed in what I wanted to say, so I changed it to middle voice by adding "-mbe". That's fine, but I also wanted the text to be part of the argument structure, so I changed "-mpa" to "-mba", making the verb A/P/F-d [-A], i.e., P/F-d. Maybe adding {-mbu} instead of {-mbambe} would have worked too, but I didn't think of that at the time. My intention was for "sya vigicambambe" (or "sya vigicambu") to mean 'read(s)', as in "The sign reads 'STOP'."

'The first page in LS's diary reads: "text".'

stevo