Return-Path: Received: from kejal-9101.pc by xiron with uucp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0okoD8-0000osC; Thu, 7 Oct 93 07:48 EET Received: from kruuna.helsinki.fi by xiron with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0okhoT-0000osC; Thu, 7 Oct 93 00:58 EET Received: from charon2-gw.pc.Helsinki.FI by kruuna.helsinki.fi with SMTP id AA29606 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 7 Oct 1993 00:57:55 +0200 Received: From HYLKN1/WORKQUEUE2 by charon2-gw.pc.Helsinki.FI via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.931007005652.416; 07 Oct 93 00:58:45 +0200 Message-Id: Received: From kruuna.helsinki.fi by charon2-gw.pc.Helsinki.FI via Charon 3.4 with SMTP id 102.931007005630.384; 07 Oct 93 00:57:56 +-02-01 Received: from finhutc.hut.fi by kruuna.helsinki.fi with SMTP id AA29461 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 7 Oct 1993 00:54:26 +0200 Message-Id: <199310062254.AA29461@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 2059; Thu, 07 Oct 93 00:52:44 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2057; Thu, 7 Oct 1993 00:52:40 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1843; Wed, 6 Oct 1993 23:52:05 +0100 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 23:50:33 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: vilva From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 06 Oct 93 16:49:00 EDT.) Content-Length: 1635 Lines: 35 Having long been absent from the discussion on this list, no doubt away on a honeymoon of record-breaking duration, Art Protin says: > 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. Am I misunderstood? I think there is a genuine, semantically significant distinction between klama and litru, & the underlying principle of place structures seems to me indispensable: I don't think the language word work if cliva were necessarily synonymous with klama with an empty destination place. But I also think the klama/cliva/litru trio wastes gismus: the rare cases where cliva or litru are needed (infinite motions) could be handled by zihoing off some places from klama. But, as I said, so what: people will just have to learn a couple of almost entirely unnecessary & useless gismu; it's not really a problem. And.