Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931006213606.320@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 1993 20:35:10 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: vilva
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed, 06 Oct 93 14:10:18 D.)
Content-Length: 705
Lines: 18

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