From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Oct 16 10:05:51 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 15 Oct 1993 10:10:33 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 15 Oct 1993 10:10:10 -0400 Message-Id: <199310151410.AA03785@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3637; Fri, 15 Oct 93 10:08:15 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9167; Fri, 15 Oct 93 10:09:29 EDT Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 00:05:51 +1000 Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: TECH: muvdu place structure X-To: lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <199310150542.AA26428@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> from "Logical Language Group" at Oct 15, 93 01:40:50 am Status: RO X-Status: To Logical Language Group respond I thus: OK. I gotta apply some self-discipline here. I'll post to you guys tonight, but tomorrow I'm working on my essay. OK? And good thing none of my toes *were* broken. But whatever... #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? I suppose anything like cirko muvgau, lebna muvgau, vimcu muvgau sepybi'o muvdu, and the like; or are these intolerably long? (These bandages have been tied a bit tight, though...) #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. Sound like a massification problem. .i pisu'o le remna cu muvdu ni'i lenu le ri birka cu muvdu .iku'i pirolei pa remna na muvdu . Actually, not even a massification problem, more like a prototype semantics problem: we say someone moves if their torso moves --- not any appendage. But I suspect this is too culture-specific to be encoded into Lojban, which should probably take a massificiation approach as safer/ more general. We could always coin {pagbymuvdu} to cope with this problem... "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*