Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931012204555.384@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 1993 14:42:17 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: vilva
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
Content-Length: 1110
Lines: 33

> As I said in another message, I remove places from a lujvo by declaring them
> irrelevant, generall using "claxu" after a semantic expression of the term
> to be eliminated.
>
> lojbab

I'm not sure if I understand. Do you mean:

xelklacau (xe klama claxu)  c1=k1 (c2=k5) k2 k3 k4

x1 goes to x2 from x3 along x4 without any means/vehicle

It works, but this doesn't make it irrelevant. It emphasises that
there are no means/vehicle.


> Actually, if we are considering deleting a means place from one of the motion
> words, I would be inclined to make it litru that has the place deleted.  It
> is, after all, pure focus on the route, and I can see that the means is as
> speculatively superfluous as origin and destination.  I have always seen klama
> as the most complete specification or concept, and it also has usage in the
> form of its BAI tag to add each of its 5 places onto other concepts that don't
> have the place.
>
> lojbab

Sounds reasonable. I see that the BAI {xeka'a} is useful, so the x5 should be
kept in {klama}.

Then something like {ka tolcnerli'u} could serve for "inertia".

Jorge