From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Oct 14 21:29:14 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 13 Oct 1993 21:30:57 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 13 Oct 1993 21:30:41 -0400 Message-Id: <199310140130.AA08570@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7410; Wed, 13 Oct 93 21:28:48 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3228; Wed, 13 Oct 93 21:31:07 EDT Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 11:29:14 +1000 Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: more on fat gismu To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Cc: Lojban Mailing List In-Reply-To: <199310140102.AA15024@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> from "Jorge LLambias" at Oct 13, 93 09:00:50 pm Status: RO X-Status: To Jorge LLambias respond I thus: #The only one I don't like from that list is {muvdu}. I'd prefer it without #an x1 and use {muvgau} for that concept. (Removing x1 from {muvdu} would #achieve what I wanted by removing x5 from {klama}.) I can't believe that you #can't talk in Lojban about movement without bringing up a cause. I'll just break my silence here (got my foot nudged by a car this morning, so I'm certainly not going to get any work done) to say that I support this change. It's consistent with Lojban (in which we encode intransitives as single gismu more often than transitives), and it makes sense to be able to talk about uncaused, vehicle-less motion in at least one gismu, when the caused version, {muvgau}, is so straightforward to derive. "Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`, N N O nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres, I I L IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s." C C A University of Melbourne. K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_ K H S *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*