Skip to content

Grammar Pattern Probes

Theme: Grammar & syntax · 9 sentences.

← Grammar & syntax · ← Corpus

P-GP-001 · Grammar Pattern 1

S162 la-li vo A person has worth.

Notes

  • Type 2 predication (la-X Q): agent-slot subject, quality predicate. X is the structural bearer of Q. The claim is intrinsic — it holds regardless of circumstance.
  • Third la-X Q sentence in corpus (after S030: la-to-su-mu vo — archive has value; S034: la-ra-ki-mu ha-fe — engine is at a thermal threshold). Pattern now confirmed in three distinct domains: epistemic (S030), thermal/material (S034), social/personal (S162).
  • la-li vo does not mean "the person is in a valued state" — that would be Type 1 and is S163. It means the person holds worth as part of their constitution. The claim does not depend on circumstances.
  • Contrastive Pair 3 upper half. Pairs with S163.

S164 la-su-mu-li ka vo The engineer acts with quality/care.

Notes

  • Type 3 predication (ka Q): the quality (vo) follows the action marker ka and characterizes how the action is performed — a manner modifier.
  • Second full Type 3 attestation (after S031: la-li-pu ka ru). Pattern confirmed: ka Q gives a manner reading; the quality modifies the action, not the agent entity.
  • Contrast with la-su-mu-li vo (hypothetical, Type 2): that would mean "the engineer has quality" — an attributive claim. S164 says "the engineer acts with quality on this occasion" — two different claims.
  • su-mu-li (W002): structural engineer / builder. First use as subject of a ka-manner-qualified action.

S165 la-si-mu no-ru The document lacks coherence.

Notes

  • Type 2 predication, negated (la-X no-Q): the document holds the property of non-unity — a structural deficiency, not a transient state.
  • Explicit contrast with C002 A1 (lo-si-mu no-ru = "the relay is in a non-unified state"). Same compound predicate (no-ru), different slot frame:
  • lo-si-mu no-ru (C002 A1) → relay IS in non-unity state — contingent device fault (can be repaired, C002 A2)
  • la-si-mu no-ru (S165) → document HAS non-unity — structural text deficiency (intervention is rewriting, not repair)
  • The la frame makes no-ru a structural claim: the document's incoherence is a property of its composition, not a state it might exit. Different kind of failure; different remedy.
  • Confirms no- works in la-X no-Q position (Type 2 negation).
  • si-mu = signal-artifact = document / textual record. Compositional; no new registration.

P-GP-002 · Grammar Pattern 2

S166 la-wi-re-su ta-re-ti ka-ne The committee meets at each recurring interval.

Notes

  • Time-adverbial strategy (ta-re-ti): frequency is expressed as a time phrase in the ta slot. The action (ka-ne) is a discrete event; the ta-re-ti positions it as recurring. This is exactly S029 Attempt A extended to an institutional subject.
  • wi-re-su (W074): operational protocol / body that implements recurring procedure. The committee is structurally an entity that meets — the meeting is its protocol.
  • ka-ne = action:assemble / convene. ne (relation/reciprocity) + ka = enter into mutual relation = gather. Compositional; not separately registered.
  • Reading: contingent frequency — "this committee meets on a recurring schedule." Says nothing about the committee's character or disposition; only about its schedule.

S167 la-ze re-ka-se She habitually records observations.

Notes

  • Morphological-aspect strategy (re-VERB): re prefixes the verb compound (ka-se = action:perceive/observe). The repetition is internal to the action — a dispositional claim about how she characteristically behaves.
  • Contrast with S166: la-ze ta-re-ti ka-se would say "she records observations at each recurring interval" (scheduled). S167's re-ka-se says "habitual recording is part of her character" — a property of the agent, not a property of her schedule.
  • The two strategies now have genuine, minimally distinguishable meanings:
  • ta-re-[X] VERB = the event recurs at regular/scheduled intervals (external frequency)
  • re-VERB = the agent has a disposition to do this habitually (internal aspect)
  • This is the decisive contrastive pair. Both strategies are legal; they are not synonymous. Option (c) of the original P-GP-002 question: both legal, distinct.
  • re as a productive verbal prefix is now confirmed. It is not merely a noun modifier (as in re-ti = recurring-time) but also a verb aspect prefix.

S168 lo-to-su-mu re-ka-de-be ti-de The archive was habitually maintained [in the past].

Notes

  • re-ka-de-be = repeat + action + repair (de-be = W035 = decay-then-grow = repair). First triple-prefix action compound: re- (aspect) + ka- (action) + de-be (root). Composes cleanly left to right: repeat(action(repair)) = habitual-repair-action.
  • ti-de (W041 = time-decay = past time interval) marks the habitual as past-located. The repetition marker re- is the aspect; ti-de is the temporal anchor. These are orthogonal modifiers and do not collapse into each other.
  • Combined with ta-re-ti strategy: both re-VERB ti-de and ta-re-ti VERB ti-de can express past-habitual. They differ in the same way as S166/S167: ta-re-ti ka-de-be ti-de = archived repairs happened on a recurring schedule; re-ka-de-be ti-de = habitually maintaining was a characteristic of how the archive was managed.

P-GP-003 · Grammar Pattern 3

S169 go-si-be du-ka-si-ru Signal-growth caused transmission-success.

Notes

  • The boundary analysis: go [lo-si be] is a standard subordinate cause clause. It closes when du appears — du is a matrix-level frame word, not a clause-internal particle. The parser recognizes du as the boundary of the go clause and opens the result clause. du [la-ka-si-mu ka-si ru] then closes at end-of-utterance (silence / sentence boundary).
  • There is no missing matrix clause. The full utterance is the biclausal coordination: go [X] du [Y] is a complete proposition — "X is cause, Y is result." No outer sentence is needed. The assertion is the causal relationship itself.
  • The abbreviated form and the full form make the same claim at different lexical resolution. The abbreviated form collapses both clauses into noun compounds; the full form expands them. Both are grammatically complete.
  • The full form is adopted as the formal register of the construction. The abbreviated form is the casual/compact register (preferred when context is established).
  • ka-si-mu = action-signal-artifact = transmitter. Compositional. ka-si ru = transmit-unified = transmit successfully (manner: ru).

S170 go [lo-to-su-mu de] du [lo-to-su de] If the archive decays, organized knowledge decays.

Notes

  • Classic conditional: the go [...] premise is a posited (not asserted) condition; du [...] is the consequence that would follow. No outer matrix needed.
  • Both clauses have their own lo-patient and de predicate. Each clause is structurally complete. The two are bound by the go ... du coordination, not by grammatical subordination to an outer sentence.
  • to-su-mu vs to-su: the archive (to-su-mu = knowledge-structure-artifact = storage device for organized knowledge) decays physically; what is lost is the organized knowledge itself (to-su). The compound distinction is doing real semantic work: device-decay ≠ knowledge-decay, but the former causes the latter.
  • This is the canonical form for general conditionals in Tonesu: go [condition] du [consequence].

S171 go [la-su-mu-li lo-mu ka-de-be] du [lo-su be] Because the engineer repaired the device, the system recovered.

Notes

  • Both clauses have full participant structure: cause-clause has la, lo, ka; result-clause has lo, predicate. No ellipsis required.
  • Confirmation of the boundary rule: du signals the end of the go-clause and opens the result clause. The result clause terminates at sentence boundary. No additional boundary marker is needed.
  • ka-de-be = action:repair (action + decay-then-grow, W035). First use of ca-de-be in the cause-slot of a go [...] clause.
  • lo-su be = patient:structure grow = the system recovers. Bare su (structure) as a nominalized patient — the system/organization as a whole recovers.

Generated from registry/entries.yaml.