Date:         Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:03:20 +0100
Reply-To:     Colin Fine <colin@KINDNESS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Colin Fine <colin@KINDNESS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: loi jei loi nu klama cu muvdu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <897152599.1010203.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Message-ID: <897512189.1028706.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 5320
Lines: 118


vecu'u le notci po'u <897152599.1010203.0@listserv.cuny.edu> la "=?iso-
8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR> cu cusku di'e
>la kolin cusku di'e
>>.i mi ze'a pensi le selsku be la xorxes iacu'i be'o pesera'a zo mo'i .i
>>ua jimpe .i tugni oi zo'o
>
>i oi zo'o le nu tugni mi cu xrani do ma

.i na'i .i mi milfengu na'e do loinu ge mi srera gi do drani

.i li'o
>
>i ie i a'u lu mo'ire'o da li'u se smuni le du'u muvdu ba'e fo le lamji
>be da iboku'i lu mo'ica'u da li'u se smuni le du'u muvdu ba'e fe
>le crane be da
>
>i zo ca'u e zo ti'a e zo zu'a e zo ri'u e zo ga'u e zo ni'a e zo ne'i
>e zo fa'a e zo to'o e zo zo'i e zo ze'o e zo bu'u e zo be'a e zo ne'u
>e zo du'a e zo vu'a cu kansa be zo mo'i tcita lo srana be le se muvdu
>
>i ku'i zo ru'u e zo pa'o e zo te'e e zo re'o e zo zo'a cu go'i lo srana
>be le ve muvdu
>
I'm not going to try this in Lojban.
I don't agree with your analysis, but I do agree that there is something
there that needs some thought. Here is a different analysis.

I will classify all the FAhA with respect to two features, which I call
'extended' and 'directional'. I shall present my classification first,
and then discuss it.

CMAVO  extend direct    notes
ca'u    -       +
ti'a    -       +
zu'a    -       +
ri'u    -       +
ga'u    -       +
ni'a    -       +
ne'i    -       -
ru'u    +       -
pa'o    +       -
ne'a    +       -       1
te'e    +       *       2
re'o    +       -       1
fa'a    +       *
to'o    +       *
zo'i    +       *
ze'o    +       *
zo'a    +       *
bu'u    -       -
be'a    -       +
ne'u    -       +
du'a    -       +
vu'a    -       +

The FAhA listed as +extended, I claim, only make sense when referring to
an object or event that extends in space (in some cases requiring an
asymmetric extent). The -extended ones can refer to an extended or point
event. [See also note 3]
Those listed as +directional express a definite direction: relative to
some reference frame, no doubt, but translatable. The -directional do
not express a direction; indeed the located items may lie in a variety
of directions from the reference. I have used * for one group of FAhA
which might be classified as +directional or -directional, but certainly
pattern together: as it happens this uncertainty does not affect my main
argument.

Note 1: the case of ne'a and re'o is far from clear. In particular, I do
not know what the difference is. I have classified them as +extended on
the basis of the glosses in TCLL (as will become apparent later). I
would actually like to make re'o +extended and ne'a -extended, thus
creating a clear difference between them.
Note 2: It is not clear what te'e means: accordingly it is not clear
whether it should be regarded as -directional, or *directional (ie as
directional as zo'a)
Note 3: The +extended +directional FAhA could conceivably be used for
non-extended items with an intrinsic direction (i.e. vectors), such as
the wind at a particular point. This possibility does not affect my main
argument, below, and in any case there remain some +extended -
directional items such as ru'u.

I now suggest that when mo'i is used with any of these, it expresses a
ve muvdu unless the FAhA is -extended AND -directional, in which case it
expresses a se muvdu. [Here is where I disagree with Jorge: I claim that
mo'iri'u expresses a (translatable) direction in space, not a direction
towards some point to the right of me.]
I suggest that this interpretation matches the glosses in TCLL. [At
first sight it does not fit for mo'ifa'a and mo'ito'o, but I think this
must be just an unclarity in the glosses, because if you read them as
telic, the end-point is the manri, not some point which is located by
the FAhA.]
I am thus arguing that the division that Jorge pointed out is can be
described in a system which is independently motivated. (For example, my
analysis predicts that "le kubli cu ri'u xunre" is sensible, but "le
kubli cu zo'i xunre" is of dubious meaning.

In principle there is no reason why we need to have the division: we
could simply say that mo'i always expresses the ve muvdu, and so
meaningful occurrences of mo'ibu'u would be rare (but perhaps at the end
of a meeting or party 'lei kurji cu mo'ibu'u nicgau').
If we were at a different stage, I think I would suggest we need two
MOhI's: one meaning movement towards a point referred to by the FAhA,
and the other movement in a direction or range referred to by the FAhA.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  colin@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------