Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110091906.AA14853@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Wed Oct 9 15:39:24 1991 Reply-To: "61510::GILSON" Sender: Lojban list From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Lojban duplications X-To: lojban To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 9 15:39:24 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN John Cowan writes: > ... There are many sets >of words in the language which are contrasted precisely by the number of >places metaphysically necessary for each: > fasnu x1 happens (no actor) > gasnu x1 does x2, x1 is the actor in event x2 > zukte x1 does x2 for x3, x1 employs means x2 to end x3 > fatci x1 is a fact (absolute) > jetnu x1 is true under conditions x2 by standard x3 > binxo x1 changes into x2 under conditions x3 (no actor) > galfi event x1 changes x2 into x3 > cenba x1 changes in property x2 by amount x3 under conditions x4 > litru x1 travels route x2 by means x3 > (no origin or destination) > cliva x1 leaves x2 via route x3 by means x4 (no destination) > klama x1 comes/goes to x2 from x3 via route x4 by means x5 Seems to me that with "zo'e" and the fact that the last places can be eliminated (if I remember the rules right) you really don't _need_ these nearly synonymous gismu. What, for example, is the distinction between "x1 cliva x2 x3 x4" and "x1 klama zo'e x2 x3 x4"? or, (correct me if I have the "fa" type markers wrong) "x1 klama fe x2 fi x3 fo x4"? Bruce