Re: ki le ckule

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> I think that "vi" has been used colloquially to mean "within a short radius
> of" where the radius is close enough to mean "At".

"Within a short radius of" is not the same as "at". I agree that {vi} is used
(as tcita) almost exclusively to mean "at", which is contrary to what the
Imaginary Journeys paper proposes.

> Thus, though I live
> 15 miles from the District, I live "vi la .uacintyn" when talking to outsiders
> though perhaps "va" when talking to District of Columbia residents.

That makes sense, nobody disputes the subjective difference in distances
but you definitely live some distance from the District. But what about
{vi le gentygugde}? Can I say that I was born {vi le gentygugde}?
Wouldn't that mean I was born in Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil or Uruguay?

> Your snail mail address means that you live vi la pitsburg. by either
> definition.

So you can't say that you live a short distance from somewhere without
risking that you'll be understood to say that you live at that place?

> So I think "vi" is a superset of "bu'u", and includes several
> other FAhA members which are specific as to location within "vi".

That's not what the tense paper says, but I agree that that is the usage.

> But of course remember that vi is not in FAhA, and has a slightly different
> set of grammatical usages in compounds as well.

Slightly different? VAs are magnitudes and FAhAs directions, I would have
said they are clearly different.

> It is for those compound
> useages that we really need to have something vague, since having two sets
> of FAhA, (or having still another "grammar shift" like MOhI to proevent
> ambiguity in such compounds) is a bit too much.

I don't understand that point. Nobody argues that the VAs should lose any
of their vagueness.

Jorge