Date:         Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:46:48 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: loi jei loi nu klama cu muvdu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <897763644.2018529.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 1817
Lines: 41


>I agree with your interpretations of both {mo'iru'u} and {mo'ifa'a},
>but I don't understand why you call them applications of the rule
>you give for {mo'izu'a}, they don't follow that rule, they follow the
>rule I was giving (i.e. that mo'i tags the ve muvdu, not the se muvdu):
 Since I am using klama rathe than muvdu, I can see why we are not
communicating.  isn't muvdu agentive?

>Using for {mo'iru'u} the rule you give for {mo'izu'a} we'd get instead:
>
>                  le nu le gerku cu cmoni cu muvdu
>                   [fe] le sruri [be le tricu]
>                   [fi] le tricu
>                The dog's barking happens moving to the surrounding
>                 of the tree from the tree.


OK, now I see what you are saying. The mo'iplace indictaes the route of
travel
I think I meant "with respect t" the tree, and not "from the tree" - maybe
ma'i le tricu rather than fi le tricu wouldwork in the above. The
dog'sbarking moves fo (via) the surounding ma'i (in reference frame) the tree.

>But what happens with the FAhA that Colin classifies as -extended?
>The gloss in the refgram suggests that they incorporate a {fa'a} when
>used with {mo'i}. So {mo'ine'i} is glossed as "moving into" which
>--More--
>is what I would use for {mo'ine'ifa'a}, and {mo'izu'a} is glossed as

I hadnt read Colin'sargument since it was responding to your in-Lojban
dsicussion and hence had no context.  I'llhave to goback and figure it out


lojbab