Subject: Re: zi'o and modals

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:32:20 -0000

la xorxes cusku di'e

> If we go by the keywords, klama is volitional and muvdu
non-volitional.

I don't really see this. "Move" can be very volitional. ("I moved to
the side.") Also, I don't know what the connection is between volition
and the means of moving/coming/going is. I can move the box in a car,
in which case I would have to use "klama" to specify the full
relationship, even though presumably the box doesn't have any
volition. Also, it seems strange that Lojban makes a
volitional/non-volitional distinction here. The only other place I can
think of is with "gasnu" vs. "zukte", which was meant to be general
enough to add the distinction to anything.

> But both are much more restrictive than their natlang cognates.
> Especially muvdu, which only works for displacements and not for
> motion in general. And we can't even get the general notion from
> its opposite, "still", because we don't have a clear word for
> that one either...

I would use "desku" and "toldesku" for that, even though the English
keyword is a bit more specific than what we want.

> >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
> 
> i ka'e mapti i ku'i pe'i zo muvgau cu simsa zo benji i na sarcu
> fa le nu le muvgau cu muvdu i ju'ocu'i zo klakansa a zo klakangau
> so'iroi mapti i mu'a lu ko klakangau le cukta do ti li'u ka'e se
> smuni zoi zoi bring the book with you zoi

i ie pe'i su'o le se stidi cu mapti ro te pilno

mu'o mi'e adam