Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931014023057.320@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 11:29:14 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: vilva
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: more on fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  <199310140102.AA15024@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> from "Jorge LLambias"
              at Oct 13, 93 09:00:50 pm
Content-Length: 1082
Lines: 19

To Jorge LLambias respond I thus:

#The only one I don't like from that list is {muvdu}. I'd prefer it without
#an x1 and use {muvgau} for that concept. (Removing x1 from {muvdu} would
#achieve what I wanted by removing x5 from {klama}.) I can't believe that you
#can't talk in Lojban about movement without bringing up a cause.

I'll just break my silence here (got my foot nudged by a car this morning,
so I'm certainly not going to get any work done) to say that I support this
change. It's consistent with Lojban (in which we encode intransitives as
single gismu more often than transitives), and it makes sense to be able to
talk about uncaused, vehicle-less motion in at least one gismu, when the
caused version, {muvgau}, is so straightforward to derive.

"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*