From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Feb 27 11:09:04 1997 Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Date: Thu Feb 27 11:09:04 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: RET: instrumentals in place structures X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1431 Message-ID: ===================================================================== coidoi lobypli I have a question about some of the gismu place structures. I want to know why they are what they are. I do NOT want to change them - I support the baseline. My question concerns the position of "instrumentals" in the place structures of those gismu that, as selbri, take instrumental arguments. Here is a small, not necessarily representative sample: GISMU ENGLISH GLOSS INSTRUMENTAL PLACE dakfu knife x1 jinci shears x1 mruli hammer x1 (x4 is agent) sance sound x2 (x2 can be agent or instrument?) darxi hit x3 (x1 is agent) ganse sense x3 (x1 is observer) plixa plow x3 (x1 is agent) tivni television x4 (x1 is agent) spali polish x4 (x1 is agent) sarji support x4 (x1 can be agent or instrument?) klama go x5 (x1 is agent & patient) Clearly there has been no effort to associate instrumental arguments with a particular position in gismu place structures. If anything, there has been an effort to avoid consistent association of "case" with place. My question is: When the gismu place structures were designed, how were the instrumental places chosen? co'omi'e markl =====================================================================