Grammar Exercise Batch (S335–S341)

Theme: Grammar & syntax · 14 sentences.

GRM-001 · Grammar Exercise Batch (S335–S341)

Purpose: targeted grammar stress tests against four underexplored constructions: (1) tense triple in narrative context — first corpus attestation of ti-mi (W109); (2) spatial deictic pa-mi — first corpus attestation (W110); (3) predication contrast la-X Q vs lo-X Q with natural-world subjects; (4) agent-drop ellipsis in conversation — formal taxonomy of the three identified ellipsis patterns.

S335 la-be-di'zo-su ki lo-ma-pa ta-ti-de The tall tree fell to the ground last season.

Notes

be-di'zo-su = be (growth/production) + di (direction/height) + ' + zo-su (plant) = growth-directional-plant = tall tree. Established S288. la-be-di'zo-su = the tall tree as agent/perspective anchor.
ki lo-ma-pa = moved to soil. lo-ma-pa = patient: soil/ground. ki (motion) + lo-ma-pa = fell / moved to the ground. The tall tree's fall is encoded as motion arriving at the soil.
ta-ti-de = at past time = last season / formerly / in the past interval. Temporal frame particle ta + ti-de (W041: elapsed time). Post-predicate position: frame follows the predicate.
Tense frame position: ta-[time] is post-predicate here. The grammar spec allows ta both pre-sententially and post-predicately; post-predicate is more natural when the action is the focus and the time is backgrounded.

S336 la-su'zo-ne be lo-zo-be ta-ti-mi The cap fungus is growing fruiting bodies on it right now.

Notes

ta-ti-mi = at the present time = right now / at this moment. ta (temporal frame particle) + ti-mi (W109: time-of-me = the speaker's present moment). First corpus attestation of ti-mi.
ti-mi as emphatic present. In Tonesu, the present tense is structurally unmarked — an unframed sentence is read as taking place at the time of utterance by default. ta-ti-mi marks the present explicitly, used when the speaker is contrasting this moment with adjacent past or future claims. Here it contrasts directly with ta-ti-de (S335) and ta-ti-be (S337) in the same narrative.
la-su'zo-ne be lo-zo-be = the cap fungus produces a fruiting body. The dead tree of S335 is the implicit substrate; zo-be here refers to the mushroom (fruiting body = zo-be of su'zo-ne, established S330).
The three-tense ecological narrative (S335–S337): last season the tall tree fell → right now the cap fungus is fruiting → soon the mycelium will spread through the soil. Three parallel ta-ti-[X] frames on three parallel agent-produces/moves sentences. The narrative demonstrates that ti-de / ti-mi / ti-be are a coherent contrastive family, not just independent time expressions.

S337 la-zo-ne ki lo-ma-pa ta-ti-be The mycelial network will spread through the soil.

Notes

ta-ti-be = at the upcoming time = soon / in the future. ti-be (W040: time-that-is-approaching). Mirrors ta-ti-de (S335) exactly: same frame particle, same post-predicate position, different direction.
la-zo-ne ki lo-ma-pa = the fungal network moves through soil = the mycelium spreads. Identical predicate structure to S328 (FNG-001-A: establishing sentence), now in a tensed narrative context. S328 was atemporal (kind-term establishing); S337 is future-tensed (narrative prediction).
Tense triple complete. The three sentences S335–S337 form the minimal tense paradigm in a coherent context. All three use ta-ti-[X] post-predicately; all three have the same SOV structure; the only varying element is the temporal frame compound. This makes ti-de / ti-mi / ti-be directly comparable.
Observation: the present marker ta-ti-mi (S336) is structurally parallel to ta-ti-de and ta-ti-be but semantically distinct — it is deictic (indexed to the speaker), not directional (oriented along the timeline). The asymmetry flagged in W109 registration is confirmed: past and future are process-anchored (decay / growth); present is self-indexed.

S338 la-pa'zo-ne ki lo-pa-mi The mold has spread here. / The mold has reached this surface.

Notes

lo-pa-mi = patient: here = this place / the speaker's location. pa-mi (W110: place-of-me) in the patient role. The mold's motion arrives at the speaker's position. First corpus attestation of pa-mi.
pa-mi in patient slot: pa-mi (deictic anchor) functions as a location noun in the patient position of a motion verb. This is the standard usage — lo-pa-mi = the place where motion terminates = here. Compare lo-pa-mi (destination: here) against pa-mi bare (descriptive: this place).
Practical context: a speaker pointing to a surface and observing that pa'zo-ne (mold) has now reached their location. The sentence is both a description and a spatial claim about the speaker's embedding in the scene — exactly the core use case for a deictic.
Deictic pair confirmed in corpus: ti-mi (W109, S336) and pa-mi (W110, S338) are now both corpus-attested in the same batch. The structural parallel (ti + mi = time/me; pa + mi = place/me) is confirmed functional in the same register.

S339 la-zo-su be-vo A plant has productive capacity. / Growth is intrinsic to a plant.

Notes

la-zo-su be-vo = the plant-class holds the property be-vo (generative quality). Type 2 attributive predication: la-[entity] [quality] = X has quality Q as part of its constitution (spec/grammar.md § Predication Strategies, Type 2). The claim is structural/intrinsic.
be-vo = be (produce/grow) + vo (value/quality) = generative quality = productive capacity = the ability to grow and produce. First attested as S114 (lo-ra-ki-mu be-vo). Here applied to a biological organism class.
What the claim says: every member of the zo-su class has growth capacity as an intrinsic property of being a plant. This is a universal categorical claim, not a temporary state. It cannot be negated without changing what zo-su means. Contrast S340.
Extension of prior art: S162 (la-li vo = persons have inherent worth) established la-X Q as the intrinsic-property frame for social agents. S339 confirms it generalizes to biological organism classes with the same semantics.

S340 lo-zo-su be-vo This plant is actively growing. / The plant is in a productive state right now.

Notes

lo-zo-su be-vo = this plant is in the state be-vo (generative quality). Type 1 patientive predication: lo-[entity] [quality] = X is in state Q (contingent, spec/grammar.md § Predication Strategies, Type 1). The claim is about current condition, not constitution.
What the claim says: this particular plant is currently in an active generative phase. It might not be at other times — it might be dormant, stressed, or seasonal. The state is contingent and can change. This is a situation report, not a definition.
Minimal contrast with S339:

Form	Reading
`la-zo-su be-vo` (S339)	Plants have growth capacity (intrinsic; categorical)
`lo-zo-su be-vo` (S340)	This plant is growing right now (contingent; situational)

Same compound zo-su, same quality be-vo, different particle → completely different claim. Neither can substitute for the other. The distinction applies across the full biological taxonomy: la-di'zo-se-ma wi-ki (a shark has predatory intent — intrinsic) vs lo-di'zo-se-ma wi-ki (this shark is in a predatory intent state — situational).

S341 Turn A: to-si — la-tu se lo-zo-ne? polar-question — agent:you perceived patient:fungal-network? Have you seen the mycelium? Turn B1: ru — se lo-zo-ne affirmative — [la-mi dropped] perceived patient:fungal-network Yes — [I] see it. / I can see it. Turn B2: ki lo-pa-mi [la-mi dropped] moved patient:here [I'll] come here. / [I'm] going to take a look. Have you seen the mycelium? / Yes — [I] see it. / [I'll] come here.

Notes

Three distinct ellipsis patterns in six words:
Imperative drop (not present here — contrast): la-tu omitted when issuing a direct command. Turn A retains la-tu in the question — to-si — la-tu se lo-zo-ne? — because interrogative sentences mark the addressee explicitly. Drop is canonical for imperatives, not questions.
Speaker drop (Turn B1): la-mi omitted when the current speaker is the obvious agent. B1 se lo-zo-ne = "[I] perceive the fungal network" — la-mi absent because in face-to-face exchange the identity of the speaker/perceiver is unambiguous. The same pattern as C001 Turn B3 (ka-ki-now), now with a different predicate.
Argument-drop by context (Turn B2): la-mi omitted AND lo- patient of the motion is non-referential (no new entity introduced). ki lo-pa-mi = "[I] move to here" — motion predicate with deictic destination. Both the agent identity and the patient's relation to discourse context are recoverable: the agent is the speaker; pa-mi grounds the destination deictically.
Recovery conditions for speaker drop:
The dropped argument must be the current speaker (first person).
The predicate must denote an action that can only belong to the speaker in the exchange context (perception, motion-toward, self-evaluation).
If the predicate could be attributed to a third party, drop is disallowed; explicit la-mi is required.
ru — [elaboration] pattern confirmed (P-AF-001): B1 uses ru (minimal affirmative) followed immediately by the content that expands on the affirmation. The pause marker — in gloss notation separates the response particle from the full-sentence elaboration.
pa-mi second attestation: B2 ki lo-pa-mi reuses pa-mi from S338 in a motion context with an agent-dropped speaker. The deictic anchor functions identically regardless of whether the agent is explicit or dropped.

GRM-002 · Interrogative Register, Tense Semantics, Symmetric Predicates, Counterfactuals (S342–S348)

Purpose: seven targeted grammar exercises extending underexplored constructions. ku particle formalized (first introduced S320, grammar deferred). ta-ti-mi temporal blocking constraint established: intrinsic la-X Q attributions are atemporal and block temporal framing; contingent lo-X Q states license it. wi purpose frame confirmed for non-human ecological agents. ne relational predicate extended to all-human arguments. to-go counterfactual applied to natural-world causal chains. to-si content question with biological subjects. Each sentence targets one deferred grammar note or untested extension.

S342 la-mi se lo-zon ku? Did I see a herd animal? / Was that a deer I spotted?

Notes

Resolves S320 person-marking. S320 first attested ku but the corpus note annotated it "Have you seen a deer?" — ambiguous with the la-mi agent. Resolution here: la-mi se lo-zon ku? is a self-directed check question. The speaker uses la-mi because they are checking their own prior perception: "wait, did I actually see a herd animal just then?" The natural English loose render "Have you seen a deer?" was an annotation error attributing second-person intent to a first-person form. In Tonesu, la-mi in a question always means the speaker is asking about themselves. To ask the listener, use la-tu (see S343).
ku = clause-final polar question particle (casual register). Placed at the end of an otherwise structural declarative, converting it into a yes/no question. No structural gap is created in the proposition (unlike content-question to-si?, which fills a syntactic slot).
Register position: ku is colloquial/familiar. Use in face-to-face conversation, self-directed checking, rapid informal exchange. The formal register equivalent is always to-si — [proposition] (fronted inquiry frame). Both encode the same polar question; register choice signals social proximity and formality.
zon = CLQ-006a colloquial stub for zo-se-ne (herd ungulate). First re-use since S320.

S343 Casual: la-tu se lo-re'zo-se-ne ku? agent:you perceived patient:deer [query?] Formal: to-si — la-tu se lo-re'zo-se-ne [inquiry-frame] — agent:you perceived patient:deer Natural: Did you see a deer? (both forms; casual vs formal register) Typical response: ru — se lo-re'zo-se-ne ta-ti-de yes — [I] perceived patient:deer at-past-time (Yes — I saw one earlier.) Did you see a deer? (casual vs formal register)

Notes

Other-directed ku: la-tu marks the addressee as the perceiving agent. The casual particle ku is agent-slot-agnostic — it does not care who the agent is. The slot follows normal Tonesu case-marking: la-mi = speaker, la-tu = listener, la-ze = third party.
Register alternation confirmed. la-tu se lo-re'zo-se-ne ku? (casual) and to-si — la-tu se lo-re'zo-se-ne (formal) ask the identical polar question. The only difference is register: ku signals familiarity; to-si — signals neutrality or formality. This is a systematic two-register polar question alternation with no semantic content difference.
Response: Speaker-drop (la-mi omitted) in the response ru — se lo-re'zo-se-ne ta-ti-de follows Pattern 2 ellipsis (GRM-001, S341). The perception predicate is speaker-attributable only; la-mi is recoverable and omitted. ta-ti-de = at past time = "earlier."
re'zo-se-ne = deer (discriminator re = cyclic return, on zo-se-ne herd ungulate). First re-use since S317 (KNM-007).
ku grammar fully formalized. Deferred note from KNM-007 verdict item 7 is now closed. Full specification in spec/grammar.md § Casual Register (ku) under § Questions.

S344 Blocked: * la-zo-su be-vo ta-ti-mi Grammatical: lo-zo-su be-vo ta-ti-mi Literal (grammatical): patient:plant generative-quality at-present-time Natural: This plant is actively growing right now. (emphatic present; contingent state) This plant is actively growing right now. (emphatic present; contingent state)

Notes

ta-ti-mi is blocked from intrinsic attributions. la-X Q (Type 2, spec/grammar.md § Predication Strategies) encodes Q as a constitutive property of X — atemporal by definition. Adding ta-ti-mi creates a type mismatch: intrinsic properties cannot be restricted to a time interval ("plants have generative capacity right now" implies they might not at other times — but that would contradict the intrinsic claim). *la-zo-su be-vo ta-ti-mi is therefore semantically anomalous regardless of tense direction: *ta-ti-de, *ta-ti-be, and *ta-ti-mi are all blocked from Type 2 attribution frames.
ta-ti-mi is licensed on contingent states. lo-X Q (Type 1) encodes Q as a current, variable state of X. lo-zo-su be-vo ta-ti-mi = "this plant is in an active growing state specifically at this moment." The ta-ti-mi adds contrastive emphasis: it's growing now (as opposed to, say, spring vs winter dormancy). This is semantically coherent; the plant can exit the state, so time-indexing it is well-formed.
Decision rule: apply ta-[time] only when the predicate describes a state that can enter, exit, or vary across time. If ta-[time] seems needed but the entity is in a la-X frame, reconsider: either the claim is genuinely contingent (switch to lo-X) or the temporal frame is misapplied (drop it).
Contrast with S339/S340: S339 (la-zo-su be-vo) = bare intrinsic attribution, no time frame possible. S340 (lo-zo-su be-vo) = bare contingent state, default present. S344 (lo-zo-su be-vo ta-ti-mi) = emphatic present for contingent state, contrastively foregrounding the current moment. The three form a minimal paradigm.

S345 la-zo-ne ki lo-ma-pa wi [de lo-zo-su] The mycelial network spreads through the soil in order to decompose plant matter.

Notes

wi [de lo-zo-su] = purpose clause: "to decay/break down plant material." Same-agent reduction: la-zo-ne is omitted from the purpose clause because it is identical to the matrix clause agent. Canonical full form: la-zo-ne ki lo-ma-pa wi [la-zo-ne de lo-zo-su].
Non-human extension of wi. Prior wi attestations (S016–S017) used human agents with expressed intentions. la-zo-ne is a fungal mycelial network — a distributed biological system without a centralized cognitive apparatus. Tonesu's design decision: wi encodes outcome-oriented process, not necessarily conscious deliberation. Hyphal growth is directionally shaped by the chemical gradient of organic material in the soil; the network's spread is oriented toward decomposition in the same functional sense as a machine's operation is oriented toward its design purpose (S016). wi spans this range because outcome-orientedness is the root semantics, not mentalistic intention.
This is a continuous extension of the precedent set at S016 (machine agent, designed purpose). The functional purposiveness of hyphal growth — seeking substrate — licenses wi precisely because wi captures the structure [agent acts] → [outcome targeted] without requiring the agent to represent the outcome propositionally.
First corpus attestation of wi with an organism-class agent.
The de lo-zo-su purpose clause is the ecological function that defines the zo-ne role in the carbon cycle (established S334: closing the ecological loop de lo-ma-pa → zo-ne → ma-pa). S345 encodes that cycle as a purposive structure.

S346 la-mi ne lo-tu na-ze I connected you with them. / I introduced you to them.

Notes

la-mi ne lo-tu na-ze = three-place ne predication: connector (la-mi) relates primary relatum (lo-tu) to co-participant (na-ze). Structure exactly parallels S333: zo-ne ne zo-su na-zo-su (network relates plant with-plant). In S346 all three argument slots are filled by personal pronouns.
Three-place ne pattern: [connector] ne [primary-relatum-lo] na-[co-participant]. The connector holds the la- agent slot and is the entity doing the relating; the lo- patient is the primary relatum; na- marks the second relatum as co-participant. The relation is symmetric between lo- and na- (you-they and they-you describe the same connection), but the agent-slot connector is directional (it is la-mi who initiated the connection).
na-ze as human co-participant pronoun. Prior na uses: name marker (na Max, S269), location (na-di'ma-ki, S312), vehicle/movement-partner (na-[horse], S318), organism second-relatum (na-zo-su, S333). S346 adds: personal pronoun co-participant (na-ze). na is fully argument-class-agnostic.
Two-place ne variant: when the initiating connector is not the focus, the two-place form la-mi ne lo-tu ("I am in relation to you / we are connected") is available. The co-participant na-ze adds the second relatum required when the relation is explicitly triangulated.
Class completeness of ne as predicate: technical/machine (earlier relay battery notes), organism-organism (S333), person-person (S346). ne is confirmed class-agnostic as a relational predicate.

S347 to-go [lo-be-di'zo-su no-ki lo-ma-pa ta-ti-de] la-zo-ne no-ki lo-ma-pa ta-ti-de Premise: patient:tall-tree negated-moved patient:soil at-past-time Result: agent:fungal-network negated-moved patient:soil at-past-time If the tall tree had not fallen, the mycelial network would not have spread.

Notes

Structure: to-go [PREMISE] RESULT per spec/grammar.md § Counterfactual Frame. Both premise and result carry ta-ti-de temporal markers locating the hypothetical in past time. The premise subject uses lo- (consistent with established pattern: S130 lo-ra-ki-mu de ti-de, S131 lo-to-re-su to-fe-su-ki ti-de).
no-ki = non-motion / did not move. Level 1 negation (no- prefix on action root ki). Applicable both to quality roots (standard) and action roots in predicate position. no-ki = the motion did not occur = the tree did not fall.
Tying back to S335: S335 asserted la-be-di'zo-su ki lo-ma-pa ta-ti-de (the tall tree fell, past, actually). S347 takes that same event, negates it (no-ki), shifts to lo- slot (premise-object), and places the whole in to-go counterfactual space. The ecological chain from the tense triple is now tested for causal necessity: without step 1 (tree falls), the downstream zo-ne spread (step 3) would not have occurred.
Ecological counterfactual reasoning: the dead fallen tree is the substrate for both su'zo-ne fruiting (S336) and zo-ne mycelial establishment (S337). S347 asserts this as a causal dependency: the tree's fall was a necessary condition for the fungal life-cycle events that followed. to-go encodes precisely this class of necessary-condition reasoning.
First to-go with natural-world subjects. Prior S130/S131 used technical/institutional agents. S347 confirms to-go is agent-class-independent.
la-zo-ne (result clause) uses la- rather than lo- because the result is the active non-spreading of the network — the network as agent of its own expansion. In the result clause the agent is the entity whose action (or non-action) is the consequence; in the premise clause the tree is cast as lo- patient of the counterfactual state.

S348 Question: la-zo-su be lo-to-si? agent:plant produces patient:knowledge-seeking What does a plant produce? Answer: la-zo-su be lo-zo-be agent:plant produces patient:biological-product A plant produces reproductive bodies. / Plants produce seeds. What does a plant produce? / A plant produces reproductive bodies.

Notes

lo-to-si? = to-si (W026) in the patient argument slot = content question. The proposition is otherwise structurally complete; to-si marks the unknown argument. Terminal ? marks prosodic rise. Structure is to-si? argument-position = content question seeking the patient (what is produced?). Contrast with fronted to-si — la-zo-su be = polar question (does the plant produce? yes/no).
be as production predicate: la-X be lo-Y = X produces/grows Y. Both agent and patient slots filled for the productive reading of be. The quality-state reading (lo-X be-vo) is distinct; here be is a transitive production event with an explicit patient slot.
Answer structure: la-zo-su be lo-zo-be replaces the to-si placeholder with the answer content. zo-be (biological reproductive body: seed, spore, fruiting body) fills the patient slot. The answer is structurally identical to the question; the unknown is resolved by substitution.
Production as intrinsic claim: the answer uses la-zo-su (agent slot), making it a Type 2 structural claim: plants intrinsically produce reproductive bodies. This is a categorical generalization, not a contingent event description. If the question asked about a specific plant currently in reproductive mode, the student would respond with lo-zo-su be lo-zo-be ta-ti-mi (Type 1, contingent, emphatic present).
to-si cross-domain. Prior content-question to-si attestations: de vo to-si? (C001 B1: what quality of damage?) and lo-pa-ra ne-ra vo to-si? (C006 A2: what quality of resonance?). Both used to-si in a quality-qualifier slot. S348 places to-si in a patient-entity slot for the first time: the unknown is not a quality but a produced thing. The positional rule (argument-slot = content question) applies identically regardless of which argument slot is filled.

Generated from registry/entries.yaml.