Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931014200828.480@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 20:01:28 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: vilva
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: more on fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 14 Oct 93 11:29:14 W.)
Content-Length: 804
Lines: 17

> #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.

I third this.

----
And                  KO JBOBANPEHO