Message-Id: <199310062050.AA21089@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 1993 16:49:00 EDT
Reply-To: protin@USL.COM
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Art Protin <protin@USL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

And just said:

> In a previous klama/cliva debate the conclusion was that klama
> entails that there be a destination, whereas cliva doesn't. So
> if something just keeps on going (e.g. a satellite sent into
> space) then it is clivaing but is not necessarily klamaing.
> Klama *does* require that there be a destination. Since there
> usually is a souce and destination to motion, even if they're
> irrelevant, klama will almost always be adequate for expressing
> any notion of going (and cliva and litru don't really deserve
> gismu status, and could just have well have been rarely used
> lujvo - but so what).

This has been my view all along.  I am total unconvinced that
the distinction between klama, cliva, and litru isn't just the
result of cultural bias and/or an excessive-compulsive view
of the role of places in the language.  I doubt that I will ever
accept that there can be a distinction between a place unfilled
and place never provided for.  Such a distinction seems to be
an overspecification that will ultimately ruin the language.
That was the beauty I was promised 20 years ago - a language
where you said what you meant, no more & no less, simply
because the words did not include the extra implied meanings
that could not be stripped out without excessive verbal
gymnastics.  If there really is a valuable distinction between
klama, cliva, & litru, then we probably need two one-place gismu
that correspond to each two place gismu, and three two-place gismu
for each three place gismu, and so on.

    Why can't a destination unworthy of mention be a) indeterminate,
b) infinitely far off (as in an electron orbit (the distination
in a planet orbit is much closer in time)) or c) expected to be
changed long before it is reached?  Why is it that the
NULL action/object/reason/etc is not an acceptable place filler?
If NULL is acceptable as a place filler, then klama(x,NULL,y,z)
should be the same as cliva(x,y,z).

    thank you all,
    Arthur Protin


Arthur Protin <protin@usl.com>
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and
are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.