arguments of verbs of motion

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!UCL.AC.UK!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!ucleaar>]

So, lojban has several words for types of motion differentitated according
to what arguments they may have, an example of which is destination. In Sta,
another invented language, there is only one verb of motion with unspecified
manner. It has 2 arguments: one for 'theme' (entity moving), & one for
location (i.e. route, path). Source & goal are defined as first & last
bits of the path. So _Sophy went from London to Paris_ is:

go -THEME-> Sophy
   -LOC-> thing <-LOC- first -THEME-> London
                <-LOC- last -THEME-> Paris

This is undeniably long-winded, but I wish to make the point that these
are the only necessary arguments. I disagree with John Cowan (I think it was)
and lojban in that I don't believe there is such a thing as motion without
a destination, as distinct from motion without *specified* destination.

Extending the discussion, it is the case that almost every action may or
may not involve the use of an instrument. Surely it is mad to duplicate
every action verb in the lexicon in order to show whether an instrument
is or isn't involved.

I realize that Lojban is the way it is, and not still being designed, so
it is as unreasonable of me to criticize it as would be to criticize
Tagalog, so please interpret my critical comments as requests for the
rationale to be explained.

-----------
And