Message-Id: <199310161749.AA17572@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 1993 18:48:04 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: deagentive place structures
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Fri, 15 Oct 93 16:57:43 EDT.)
Status: RO

Jorge (quoting And quoting Lojbab):
> > > #tunlo tul tu'o swallow x1 (agent/throat) swallows/engulfs x2 5c 2 (cf.
> > > #citka, pinxe)
> > > #  Does your throat or you do the swallowing?  This may be agent/object
> > > #  confusion, or it may be a mass concept masquerading as metonymy
> >
> > This is very interesting. In English we can swallow without swallowing
> > anything.
>
> Not even saliva?

Well, maybe, but this is like saying waving is hitting, because
waving will always involve hitting air (OK OK - unless you're waving
in a vacuum).

> > This is a prime case where the x2 might need often to be
> > zihoed off. I tentatively suggest:
> >
> >    tunlo  x1 (agent) gulps
> >    tistuho (tisna zei tuho)  x1 (agent) swallows x2
> >
> > (assuming my proposal for tisna)
>
> I don't like this change. I think {tunlo} is fine as it is.

Yes, if it primarily means 'engulf' rather than 'swallow'. If it
primarily means 'swallow', then 'gulp' is 'tunlo be fe ziho'. If
we can live with that, it is one of our best examples of the use
of 'ziho'.

----
And