Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110141853.AA08076@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Mon Oct 14 15:01:20 1991 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Subject: arguments of verbs of motion To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 14 15:01:20 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN So, lojban has several words for types of motion differentitated according to what arguments they may have, an example of which is destination. In Sta, another invented language, there is only one verb of motion with unspecified manner. It has 2 arguments: one for 'theme' (entity moving), & one for location (i.e. route, path). Source & goal are defined as first & last bits of the path. So _Sophy went from London to Paris_ is: go -THEME-> Sophy -LOC-> thing <-LOC- first -THEME-> London <-LOC- last -THEME-> Paris This is undeniably long-winded, but I wish to make the point that these are the only necessary arguments. I disagree with John Cowan (I think it was) and lojban in that I don't believe there is such a thing as motion without a destination, as distinct from motion without *specified* destination. Extending the discussion, it is the case that almost every action may or may not involve the use of an instrument. Surely it is mad to duplicate every action verb in the lexicon in order to show whether an instrument is or isn't involved. I realize that Lojban is the way it is, and not still being designed, so it is as unreasonable of me to criticize it as would be to criticize Tagalog, so please interpret my critical comments as requests for the rationale to be explained. ----------- And