Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 19:14:49 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: more on vi/fa'a/to'o
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HMD17873KI000KVG@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1080
Lines: 41

la i,n cusku di'e

> I thought the idea was that one pair (fa'a/to'o, I think)
> was about motion relative to the specified point (if any),
> and the other (ze'o/zo'i) was about motion starting from
> the specified point, but relative to the origin.

That makes sense. I think I finally understand them!

> So
>
> mo'ifa'a ko'a    towards X
> mo'ito'o ko'a    away from X
> mo'ize'o ko'a    outwards from X (i.e. away from here, starting from X)
> mo'izo'i ko'a    inwards from X (i.e. towards here, starting from X)
>
>          ^
>          | mo'ize'o
>          |
> mo'ifa'a | mo'ito'o
> -------> X ------->
>          |
>          | mo'izo'i
>          v
>
>          O
>
> So {ze'o} and {zo'i} are special cases of {to'o}.
>
> I suggest the following corresponding static interpretations.
>
> fa'a    near to (more or less redundant with {ne'a})
> to'o    distant from (more or less redundant with {na'ene'a})
> zo'i    cis, on this side of
> ze'o    trans, on the other side of

I like it! Thanks for the clarification. I'll remove zo'i and
ze'o from my hit-list  ;)

Jorge