Re: means/vehicle

[Art Protin <protin@USL.COM>]

Do I correctly understand the answer to my question about the
distinctions in the travel word given by lojbab:

>  Indeed, it is difficult to tell the difference between English
> "come" and "go" UNLESS you ascribe a focus on particular sumti -
> origin in the case of come and destination in the case of go.
> In which case we use cliva for leave and I have used klamu'o
> for arrive. litru is intended to cover travel when you don't
> really have any focus on the endpoints or they may be undefined.

and

> Actually, if we are considering deleting a means place from
> one of the motion words, I would be inclined to make it litru
> that has the place deleted.  It is, after all, pure focus on
> the route, and I can see that the means is as speculatively
> superfluous as origin and destination.  I have always seen klama
> as the most complete specification or concept, and it also has
> usage in the form of its BAI tag to add each of its 5 places
> onto other concepts that don't have the place.

It seems to me that lojbab is saying that klama, cliva, and litru
are all motion words with the only distinction being the
emphasis/focus.  Cliva is used where special emphasis is on
leaving as in "Let's get out of here".  Litru emphasizes
the travel as in "Let's go travel around (tour) Europe".
Klama is fully generalized expression of motion without any
special emphasis.
    I now visualize them as the captions of pictures:

"cliva"         someone pointing at the door, translation
                        "get out of here!"
"litru"         the stylized cartoon "Keep on truckin'"

with no picture for the formal specification klama.


IS THIS IT?

    thank you all,
    Art Protin


Arthur Protin <protin@usl.com>
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and
are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.