\section{The Sentence Juncture}
\label{sec9}
%
%
%
A text is a sequence of sentences. Text have a coherence, 
which shows up in the possibility to refer back to 
previously mentioned objects, in ellipsis, to name 
a few. In Australian languages of the kind considered 
here any material that can be inferred from the 
context can be omitted. This leads to structures 
that can from a traditional perspective hardly be 
considered sentences. Here, however, any sequence 
of words is a semantic constituent (though not a 
syntactic one as defined above). Hence there is no 
difficulty in parsing such utterances, and hence no 
reason not to call them sentences (see \cite{dench:martuthunira} 
for a defense). Notice that there is no need here to posit 
empty categories. It might therefore be deemed possible 
to propose the same semantics 
for the sentential juncture as we did sentence 
internally. Given that, the semantics would be 
as follows: 
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/./} \\
\hline
\auf \circ : \circ : \triangleright\zu \\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\
\hline
\varnothing 
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
Yet, such a proposal is easily seen to be insufficient. 
It would predict that any main level nominative denotes the 
same object, so whenever in a sentence a nominal appears bearing 
nominative case, it will be associated with just the same 
individual as before. To exclude that, the following 
alternative might be proposed:
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/./} \\
\hline
\auf \circ : \mbox{\tt 1}{^{\smallfrown}\circ} : \triangleright\zu \\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\
\hline
\varnothing 
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
Here, {\tt 1} is a formal element that is attached to the 
sequence so as to make the set of variables of the first 
sentence disjoint from the set of variables of the second 
sentence. This certainly works, but we again have to impose 
restrictions. It is obvious that the juncture may not be 
applied to an incomplete sentence. Otherwise the result will 
be incorrect. 

Now, we can follow the line of Section~\ref{sec6} and 
postulate a distinct stack symbol $\bullet$ with which we 
introduce the word/sentence distinction into the semantics. 
The rest is then rather straightforward. There are two types 
of sentence junctures, one called `;', which joins the 
material into the previous sentence, and the other called 
`.': 
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\sf ;}/} \\
\hline
\auf \circ : \bullet : \triangleright\zu \\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\
\hline
\varnothing 
\\\hline
\end{array}
%%
\qquad\qquad
%%
\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\sf .}/} \\
\hline
\auf \circ : \mbox{\tt 1}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet} : \triangleright\zu \\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\
\hline
\varnothing 
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
We shall illustrate the potential of the proposal by 
giving an analysis of a dialogue in Martuthunira, taken 
from \cite{dench:martuthunira}:
%%
\\[2mm]
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
(\thesection.1) & A: {\tt Ngayu} & {\tt kangku}-{\tt lha} & 
	{\tt mayiili}-{\tt marnu}-{\tt ngu} & 
	{\tt kulhampa}-{\tt arta}. \\
	& I & take-{\sc past} & {\sc SoSo+1Poss}-{\sc grp}-{\sc acc} & 
	fish-{\sc all} \\
	& \multicolumn{4}{l}{\it I took a group of my grandchildren 
	for fish.} \\
\end{tabular}
\\[2mm]
\begin{tabular}{lll}
(\thesection.2) & B: {\tt Nganangu}-{\tt ngara} & {\tt pawulu}-{\tt ngara}?
\\
	& who{\sc gen}-{\sc pl} & child-{\sc pl}? \\
	& \multicolumn{2}{l}{\it Whose children are they?} 
\end{tabular}
\\[2mm]
\begin{tabular}{lll}
(\thesection.3) & A: {\tt Ngurnu}-{\tt ngara}-{\tt a} & 
	{\tt yaan}-{\tt wirriwa}-{\tt wura}-{\tt a.} \\
	& that{\sc obl}-{\sc pl}-{\sc acc} & spouse-{\sc % 
	priv}-{\sc belong}-{\sc acc} \\
	& \multicolumn{2}{l}{\it (I took) the ones who belong to 
		the one who is without a spouse.} 
\end{tabular}
\\[2mm]
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
(\thesection.4) & B: {\tt Ngaa,} & {\tt purrkuru} & {\tt pala.} & 
	{\tt Ngarraya}-{\tt ngu}-{\tt ngara}-{\tt a.} \\
	& Yes  & Okay & {\sc it} & niece-{\sc gen}-{\sc % 
	pl}-{\sc acc} \\
	& \multicolumn{4}{l}{\it Yes. Okay that's it (I understand). 
	(You took) niece's ones.} 
\end{tabular}
\\[2mm]
%%
The interesting thing about this dialogue is that the utterances 
that follow the first one are highly elliptical and can only be 
understood in their context. Yet, in the semantics we have presented 
there is actually no need to assume that material is missing 
in them, and they can be interpreted as such, without any context, 
although of course the meaning of the utterances appears a little 
less fragmented when the context is given. We shall go through the 
dialogue assuming that sentences are conjoined by `;', even 
across speakers. We shall not concern ourselves with indexicals or 
how exactly a dialogue or a question is analysed. We will just show 
that any of the sentences can be interpreted by itself and fitted into 
the context. Now, here are the relevant structures for the particles 
that appear in the first text. 
%%
$$\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}l@{\qquad}l}
\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\tt marnu}/} \\
\hline
\auf \ast : \ast : \triangleright\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf group}'(\ast) \\\hline
\end{array}
  &
\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\sc acc}/} \\
\hline
\auf \ast : \mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\ast} : \triangleright\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf theme}'(\ast) \doteq \mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\ast} 
\\\hline
\end{array}
 &
\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\sc all}/} \\
\hline
\auf \ast : \mbox{\sc all}{^{\smallfrown}\ast} : \triangleright\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf moves-to}'(\mbox{\sc all}{^{\smallfrown}\ast}, 
\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\ast}, \ast). \\\hline
\end{array}
\\
\\
\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\tt lha}/} \\
\hline
\auf \ast : \ast : \triangleright\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf past}'(\ast) \\\hline
\end{array} 
& & 
\end{array}$$
%%
The analysis of the accusative and the allative need comment. 
We construe the meaning of the accusative as indentifying the 
object as the theme. This is of course superficial but does the 
trick here. Notice that in order for this proposal to work properly, 
the word that is in the accusative needs to be construed as the 
accusative object of some verb. Otherwise it is not  
meaningful to say that it is a theme. The 
analysis of the allative is as follows. It says that 
the accusative object of the verb moves towards the thing 
in the allative during event time. (This is an exegesis of 
the gloss {\sf moves-to}.) It would be possible to make 
the semantics such that it does not depend on the verb 
being transitive and the object moving, but that would 
needlessly complicate matters. Now, nominative is treated 
like accusative. We assume that the object comes together 
with an indefinite determiner. (Moreover, nouns can be either 
bare or appear with an indefinite determiner. Alternatively, 
one might posit an empty indefinite.) (\thesection.1) is then 
translated as follows: 
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(\thesection.1)} \\
\hline
\auf \bullet : \bullet\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\{\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}\} 
\\\hline
\mbox{\sf sub}'(\bullet) \doteq \mbox{\sf me}'; 
\mbox{\sf take}'(\bullet); \mbox{\sf past}'(\bullet); \\
\mbox{\sf theme}'(\bullet) \doteq \mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}; 
         \\
\mbox{\sf group}'(\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet});
\mbox{\sf grandson}'(\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}); \\
\mbox{\sf belong}'(\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet},
	\mbox{\sf me}'); \\
\mbox{\sf move-to}'(\mbox{\sc all}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet},
	\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}}, \bullet)
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
Now we turn to the second sentence. 
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\tt nganangu}/} \\
\hline
\auf\ast : \ast\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf who}'(\mbox{\sc gen}{^{\smallfrown}\ast}); \\
\mbox{\sf belong}'(\mbox{\sc gen}{^{\smallfrown}\ast}, \ast) 
\\\hline
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\tt ngara}/} \\
\hline
\auf \ast : \ast : \triangleright\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf card}'(\ast) > 2 \\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
The speaker asks about the identity of the variable 
$\bullet{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc acc}}$ of the first 
utterance. This however is not restorable from the 
utterance. Rather, putting everything together we get
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(\thesection.2)} \\
\hline
\auf \bullet : \bullet\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf who}'(\mbox{\sc gen}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}); 
\mbox{\sf belong}'(\bullet,\mbox{\sc gen}{% 
	^{\smallfrown}\bullet}); \\
\mbox{\sf card}'(\bullet) > 2; 
\mbox{\sf child}'(\bullet).
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
At this point, we must make an additional assumption. The two 
discourses can neither be linked directly (via `$;$') nor 
using the full stop `$.$'). What happens is that the object carrying 
$\bullet$ in the second discourse refers to the object 
carrying $\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}$ in the first. 
Therefore, we must substitute $\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}$ 
for $\bullet$ in the second discourse and then use `$;$'. However, 
this might not be what is going on really. For, alternatively, Speaker 
B might have suffixed all the constituents with the accusative 
as in the last sentence. Apparently, then, this is not what is going 
on. Rather, Speaker B simply refers to some discourse object, and as 
soon as that reference is resolved, an appropriate substitution is 
chosen. We shall not attempt to scrutinize this further, simply 
noticing that the processes we have described so far do not 
work automatically at this point. 

Now we turn to the third sentence. Here we encounter two 
more suffixes
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\sc belong}/} \\
\hline
\auf \ast : \mbox{\sc belong}{^{\smallfrown}\ast} : \triangleright\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf belong}'(\ast,\mbox{\sc belong}{^{\smallfrown}\ast}) 
\\\hline
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\sc priv}/} \\
\hline
\auf \ast : \mbox{\sc priv}{^{\smallfrown}\ast} : \triangleright\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{} \\
\nicht \; 
\begin{array}{|c|}
\hline
\{\mbox{\sc priv}{^{\smallfrown}\ast}\} \\
\hline 
\mbox{\sf have}'(\ast,\mbox{\sc priv}{^{\smallfrown}\ast}). 
\\\hline
\end{array} \\
\mbox{}
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
The full interpretation of (\thesection.3) is as follows. 
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(\thesection.3)} \\
\hline
\auf \bullet : \bullet\zu 
\\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf belong}'(\mbox{\sc belong}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}, % 
\mbox{\sc belong}{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc %
acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}}); \\
\\
\nicht \; 
\begin{array}{|c|}
\hline
\{\mbox{\sc priv}{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc belong}%
{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc acc}%
{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}}}\} \\
\hline 
\mbox{\sf have}'(%
\mbox{\sc belong}{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc acc}%
{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}}),
\mbox{\sc priv}{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc belong}%
{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc acc}%
{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}}}).
\\\hline
\end{array}\, ; \\
\\
\mbox{\sf that}'(\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}); 
\mbox{\sf card}'(\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}) > 2. 
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
Finally, we turn to (\thesection.4). Omitting the 
first sentence we treat only the second one, which 
consists of one single word. Its interpretation is
%%
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{/\mbox{\tt ngarrayangungraraa.}/} \\
\hline
\auf \bullet : \bullet \zu \\
\hline\hline
\varnothing \\\hline
\mbox{\sf theme}'(\bullet) \doteq \mbox{\sc acc}{% 
	^{\smallfrown}\bullet}; \\
\mbox{\sf card}'(\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}) > 2; \\
\mbox{\sf belong}'(\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}, %
\mbox{\sc gen}{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}});
\\
\mbox{\sf niece}'(\mbox{\sc gen}{^{\smallfrown}\mbox{\sc %
acc}{^{\smallfrown}\bullet}}). \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
%%
It is now clear that (modulo adaptation of the second sentence) 
each of the sentences can be merged into the discourse 
using the semicolon, ie without adjusting the variables. 
This is so because the sentences are quite coherent, just 
exchanging information about the very same situation or 
event at hand, namely the taking for fishing of some 
people by speaker A. 
