Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 6 Oct 1993 15:37:48 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 6 Oct 1993 15:37:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199310061937.AA18532@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7223; Wed, 06 Oct 93 15:35:41 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0078; Wed, 06 Oct 93 15:37:27 EDT Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 20:35:10 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, Logical Language Group To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 06 Oct 93 14:10:18 D.) Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 6 21:35:10 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET In reply to John: 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 is surely a matter to be hammered home in a FAQ or in the intro materials to place structures. And