From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:57:11 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 18877 invoked from network); 29 Jan 1997 22:57:31 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 29 Jan 1997 22:57:31 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <11.A3301FC6@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 23:57:24 +0100 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:43:59 GMT Reply-To: ia@stryx.demon.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: A question about space tenses X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1171 Lines: 26 Message-ID: In message <854419538.621181.0@vms.dc.lsoft.com> jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR writes: > Iain Alexander wrote: > [...] > > Perhaps, but it looks like we're stuck with using the gismu > > {farna} for that. [Editorial note: I'm sure I added "Or {fi'o farna}" after originally preparing that message and before sending it off, but it seems to have got lost somewhere.] > ... The definition lojbab gave is also > ambiguous, and though the explanation he gives obviously refers to > the location definition, I think it would be worth going back to > the original orientation one. (The origin of fa'a is from farna, > clearly, and that is even in the refgrammar.) Well, the whole of selma'o FAhA is about position, and adding {mo'i} makes it about movement. It might have been nice if there had been another MOhI which made it about orientation. You always try using e.g. {xo'i} for that. I don't think having one or two cmavo in the selma'o being about a different kind of spatial relationship is a good idea, no matter what the loosely-associated gismu might be. -- Iain Alexander ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk