From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jun 22 16:31:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 22 Jun 2001 23:31:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 15537 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2001 23:31:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jun 2001 23:31:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2001 23:31:56 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:31:55 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.48 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:31:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.48] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: zi'o and modals Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:31:55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2001 23:31:55.0956 (UTC) FILETIME=[864FC740:01C0FB73] From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam cusku di'e >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.") I suppose so. What differences do you see between English "go" and English "move"? I'm not saying there have to be the same differences between klama and muvdu, but it is hard to see where else the difference is going to come from. It seems to me that "move" is more of a purely physical description of what is going on, while "go" involves the intentions of the goer. I agree that "move" can be used in a volitional sense, I think it refers more to the physical change of location whereas "go" refers more to where one wants to be. I'm just speculating. >Also, I don't know what the connection is between volition >and the means of moving/coming/going is. Neither do I. klama is a horribly overinflated predicate. >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. I would hesitate to use {klagau} for that. I think I would go with {muvgau sepi'o}. >Also, it seems strange that Lojban makes a >volitional/non-volitional distinction here. I'm not (yet) asserting that it does. Just exploring the possibilities. What other distinctions are possible? If we leave it entirely up to usage it will probably end up as a copy of the English distinctions, unconsciously borrowed. >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. There is a much more basic distinction I see between gasnu and zukte. {le zukte} is almost necessarily one of the arguments of {le se zukte}. {le gasnu} is usually not one of the arguments of {le se gasnu}, and when it is, it gets duplicated, (as when you make yourself do something, or make someone do something to you) so we could say that it is never one of its arguments. > > 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. Yes, I guess that's the best option. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.