Date:         Sat, 13 Jun 1998 18:05:20 -0300
Reply-To:     "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: loi jei loi nu klama cu muvdu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <897772263.105696.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 1309
Lines: 33


Lojbab:
> Since I am using klama rathe than muvdu, I can see why we are not
>communicating.  isn't muvdu agentive?

x1 (object) moves to destination/receiver x2 [away] from origin x3 over
path/route x4

 >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 we do not disagree about {mo'iru'u}! We all agree that {le sruri be le
tricu}
is the path of the movement.  The question was whether in the case of
{mo'izu'a} we had {le zunle} as the path or as the destination.

 >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

au do co'a tcidu le selmri be bau la lojban

co'o mi'e xorxes