From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:50:54 2010 Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Mar 17 09:35:00 1997 X-UIDL: 858609200.113 From: Mark Vines Subject: RET: tunlo, x2 & zi'o X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1166 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 17 09:35:00 1997 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: ===================================================================== The most recent gismu list known to me gives the following entry for {tunlo}: > tunlo > tul tu'o > swallow > x1 gulps/swallows > 5c 2 > [x1 swallows down [food/drink] x2 (= tulpinxe, tulcti, ctitu'o > (the latter two are more general - for food or beverage); > swallow/engulf (= galxycti, galxynerbi'o, galxygre]; (cf. citka, > pinxe, galxe) This entry has some problems, like an excess of ((, & I am unsure of how it should be read. I think maybe it's saying that {tunlo} has no x2 place by itself, that a tanru or lujvo must be used if an x2 place is needed. Is that correct? If so, this leads me to a question about gismu semantics. Why does {tunlo} have no x2 place for the thing swallowed? Suppose someone performs the action of gulping without necessarily swallowing any food or drink. If {tunlo} had an x2 place, would we have to say {tunlo zi'o} in order to describe that action? I'm wondering whether {tunlo} was denied an x2 place as part of an effort to minimize the use of {zi'o}. co'omi'e markl =====================================================================