Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931007174816.928@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Message-Id: <199310071542.AA17306@kruuna.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 1993 11:19:09 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: vilva
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  <199310062252.AA24561@access.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Oct 6,
              93 11:50:33 pm
Content-Length: 1344
Lines: 32

mi'e .djan. .i la .and. cusku di'e

> 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 [would] work if cliva were necessarily
> synonymous with klama with an empty destination place.

It depends on what is meant by "empty".  Using "cliva" means that the
speaker does not assert the meaningfulness of there being a destination.

> 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.

Logically, yes; almost all instances of {litru}ing and {cliva}ing are
also instances of {klama}ing.  But pragmatically the emphasis will be
different.  When I say that I {klama fo} the highway, this entails that
my motion is bounded.  If I say that I {litru fo} the highway, I suggest
unboundedness, whether in fact my motion is bounded or not.

> 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.

The gismu space isn't minimal in any sense.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.