From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 21 23:27:12 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3511 ; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:27:11 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jun 95 08:10:26 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa25366; 21 Jun 95 9:10 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0684; Wed, 21 Jun 95 03:40:14 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2643; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:40:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:39:53 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: plipe X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506210910.aa25366@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >la lojbab. cusku di'e >... > > The current place structure is: > > > > >Not unless it's changed since the latest gismu list; I have > >plipe >x1 (agent/object) leaps/jumps/springs/bounds to x2 from x3 reaching >height x4 propelled by x5 > >Was this a typo or a misreading? Neither, a case of not checking the gismu list. I think we added the other two places the last time this topic came up, probably based on reasoning similar to the lines the debate has taken this time, except that at that point we were tending to expand rather than contract place structures. The current official place structure takes in a somewhat larger variety of jumps than it used to. lojbab