From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Mar 18 07:56:18 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:56:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DCJpa-0000OS-MP
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:56:10 -0800
Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.14])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32)
	(Exim 4.44)
	id 1DCJpV-0000Nf-F5
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:56:10 -0800
Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2IFtVdY001258;
	Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:55:31 -0600
Received: from localhost (adam@localhost)
	by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id j2IFtV8K001255;
	Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:55:31 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:55:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Adam D. Lopresto" <adam@pubcrawler.org>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: [Archivist] muvdu vs. sezmuvgau
In-Reply-To: <20050318004655.GF26000@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503180943190.411@hive.cec.wustl.edu>
References: <20050315013714.GG14473@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
 <42365F51.6070804@lojban.org> <20050318004655.GF26000@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 9605
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:06:41PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>>> I get the impression from the definition of muvdu (in
>>> particular, the claim that its x1 is an object) that it can't be
>>> used for "I move to the back of the room".
>>
>> I'm not sure why not.  Lojban definitions aren't always
>> politically correct, and a person can be an object %^)
>
> Ah, see, in my English that's not really the case.

When I see "object" in the definitions, I tend to think dacti

.i ro remna cu dacti .i xu su'o gu'enai remna gi prenu cu zasti .i xu le
go'i cu dacti

>>> but I just want to check: can muvdu be used for agentive
>>> movement?
>>
>> The gismu list gives muvgau and muvzu'e for agentive move.
>
> Which is sort of my point: the presence of those compounds implies
> that "mi muvdu lo vorme" for "I move to the door" is wrong, because
> it's an agentive sentence but the presences of those compounds
> implies that muvdu is not agentive.

{muvdu} isn't agentive.  That doesn't mean that there isn't an agent involved,
it just means that there isn't an agent included in that bridi.  so {mi
muvdu lo vorme} means that you end up at the door, while being agnostic
about whether you're moving under your own power, being carried by someone
else, falling in some unusual gravity well, or any other means of
transportation.
-- 
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

                   .-""-.
             .--./      `.          .-""-.
           .'    `.__,"\  \  ___  .' _    \
          :  _  _  :    \  `"   "' ,' \   /
        .-|  _  _  |-.   Y        Y    `-'
       ((_| (O)(O) |_))  |  _  _  |
        `-|  .--.  |-'   | (o)(o) |
        .-' (    ) `-.   /   __   \
       / .-._`--'_.-. \ |   /# \   |
      ( (n   uuuu   n) )|   \__/   |
       `.`"=nnnnnn="'.'  \        /   _
         `-.______.-'   _ `.____.' _ / )-,
          _/\|  |/\__ .' `-"    "-' (_/ / )
       .w'/\ \__/ /\w/               |_/ / )
     .-\w(( \/  \/ ))|   |            `-(_/
    /  |ww\\ \  / //w|   |           |   \
   /   |www\\/`'\//ww|   |           |\   \
  /    |wwww\\  //www|   |           | \   \