Subject: Re: zi'o and modals

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:26:22 -0000

la pier cusku di'e

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >This fundamentalism can be confining. People regularly use klama
for
> >walking, but there really is no vehicle involved. If you want to
get
> >surreal enough, and call a shoe a vehicle, then you can call a
nonexistent
> >cap a sort of cap, just like zero is a number and black is a color,
and
> >the null set is a set. How far should we take this?
> 
> The gimste says "using means/vehicle x5", so legs are a means of
going
> (gatram). BTW, Russian has distinct words for going (idti) and going
by vehicle
> (yekhat'). To say "walk" specifically you say "idti peshkom"
(apparently
> "peshok" means "foot" but is used only in this phrase).

So does Hebrew ("lalekhet" vs. "linsoa"), and many other languages.
Maybe we should really be using "muvdu" when there's no vehicle
involved; I'm not sure what the distinction between "klama" and
"muvdu" is otherwise.

i ta'o mi so'iroi kucli le du'u makau valsi la'o zoi bring zoi la
lojban i le ka bevri cu la'a nibli le ka jgari i xu zo muvgau e zo
klagau cu dukse le ka malxebro srana

mu'o mi'e adam