methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti
wrote:
> So far as I can tell, the reasons for
> omission can be divided into three broad
> categories (to match the three available
> markers
> — each category has obvious subdivisons): a)
> place filler significant, speaker knows what
> fills it, hearer can supply the filler
> correctly
> (several senses of {zo'e}and {zu'i} too), b)
> place filler insignificant, sppeaker doesn't
> care
> what, if anything, goes there, hearer shouldn't
> bother trying to find out ({zi'o} plus a bit)
> c)
> place significant but speaker is not going to
> say
> — can't or won't — what goes there, hearer
> can
> not certainly identify the filler (ignorance,
> secrets, nastiness and so on). If we move
> {zu'i}
> to the last of these, we can briefly explain
> away
> any challenged omission, though in the blank =
> {zi'o}'s defense a hearer who cannot identify
> the
> filler immediately is probably wisest to
> assume
> it is insignificant.
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.
Is the place significant?
A. No {zi'o}
B. Yes. Does the speaker (s) know the filler?
1. No. Does he at least know that it is
filled?
a. No. X (probably {zi'o}, ignorance}
b. Yes. {da}
2. Yes. Does s want hearer (h) to know the
filler?
a. No. Y, secrecy (probably not {zi'o})
b. Yes. Can h come to an adequate
identification on the basis of the
information so far?
i. No. s tells h what the filler is.
ii. Yes. {zo'e} (either the obvious one or
any one within a contextually defined
range).