Re: Lojban duplications

[John Cowan <cbmvax!UUNET.UU.NET!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>]

mi pu cusku di'e:

>  ... There are many sets
> of words in the language which are contrasted precisely by the number of
> places metaphysically necessary for each:

[examples omitted]

>        litru           x1 travels route x2 by means x3
>                                (no origin or destination)
>        cliva           x1 leaves x2 via route x3 by means x4 (no destination)
>        klama           x1 comes/goes to x2 from x3 via route x4 by means x5
>

la brus. gilsn. cusku di'e:

> Seems to me that with "zo'e" and the fact that the last places can be
> eliminated (if I remember the rules right) you really don't _need_ these
> nearly synonymous gismu.
>
> What, for example, is the distinction between "x1 cliva x2 x3 x4" and "x1
> klama zo'e x2 x3 x4"? or, (correct me if I have the "fa" type markers wrong)
> "x1 klama fe x2 fi x3 fo x4"?

(You mean "x1 klama fi x2 x3 x4"; "fa" is for the first place and so
on in sequence, and after a single FA tag, following untagged places follow
in sequence.)

The difference is in what is or is not understood.  The form

        mi cliva le zdani

means "I leave the house", and does >not< necessarily imply that I am going
to anywhere.  I may have no destination whatsoever.

        mi klama zo'e le zdani

or equivalently

        mi klama fi le zdani

mean that I go from the house to somewhere which is definite, but unspecified
by me.  I am not telling you, or not bothering to tell you, where I am going;
either because it is obvious, or because it is not relevant (or perhaps because
I want to hide it.)

--
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban