Re: arguments of verbs of motion

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

la .and. rostas. cusku di'e

> 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.

The point is that Lojban calls that kind of motion "litru", and of course
such a path may be closed, without beginning or end (example: the Earth's
orbit around the Sun).  "klama", on the other hand, describes the kind of
motion that does have a beginning and an end, whether or not specified
by the speaker.  So "klama" vs. "litru" makes a semantic contrast:  "motion
over a path with beginning and end (and a means)" vs. "motion over a path
possibly without a beginning or an end (with a means)".

> 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.

True, and that's why we have the "extra arguments" mechanism, usually called
BAI places after the prototype word of the semantic category of extra-argument
flags.  ("bai" = roughly "compelled by...").  "With instrument" would be
marked by "sepi'o":

        mi kakpa zo'e loi dertu sepi'o lemi canpa
        I dig something-unspecified from-the-mass-of dirt with-instrument
                my shovel.

> 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.

1) One of the points still under construction is the "place structures",
the sentences of the form "x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3
via route x4 using means x5" that explain what predicates have what arguments.
We have tentative versions of these for the 1300 gismu, but no really
comprehensive review of them has been done and they will probably not be
fully stabilized until the language has been in use for some time.

2) The historical roots of the gismu list go back over 30 years.
The tendency has always been to add words to it rather than to remove them,
and so some stubs remain in the system that are of limited utility.
The list does not attempt to exhibit a complete and comprehensive semantic
theory which hierarchically partitions the entire semantic space of human
discourse; the effect aimed at is rather a blanketing of semantic space.


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