Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931015064216.416@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 1993 01:40:50 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: vilva
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      TECH: muvdu place structure
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1011
Lines: 26

I've looked over muvdu, and am inclined to make it intransitive, along
with other gismu that I find that are unnecessarily transitive (see
other posting on jarco).

However there was another distinction embedded in muvdu that was not in
other words of motion. benji is transmission that need not necessarily
alienate the thing transmitted from the originator (e.g. information)
muvdu was intended to indicate a relocation that necessarily implied
alienation.

If we make muvdu the intransitive of motion, how do we show the alienation/
inalienation distinction?

And a problem I was alrady unsettled about:  how do we express motions
of parts of an object, either transitive or intransitive; e.g.  "He
lifted his arm".  "The arm of the apparatus moved through a 90 degree
arc." as expressions of "the man moves" and "the apparatus moves".  i.e.
If the man lifts his arm or it raises on its own for some reason, we can
say that "the man moves", but the man doesn't move from/to anywhere.

Ideas?

lojbab

lojbab