Re: ki le ckule

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

>> 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.

I think we are differing on English semantics here.  Whenever an object is
solid, for example, we understand "At" to mean "within a short radius"
e.g.  I am standing at the chair.

For containers, "at" does not mean "in".  "Put that at the box" rather than
"put that 'in' the box" will leave us a bit muddled ass to exactly how close
to put it.

"Put the dishes at the table" means "on the table" usually.  But "on" something

is still at a non-zero radius.

As to where you were born - well it probably wasn't "ne'i" Argentina - that
brings to mind a cave under the surface, though it may be cultural bias.
If I wanted to ssay you were born in Argentina, I would use "vi", if in a
neighboring country excluding Argentina, I would use "va".  "vi" includes
anything that can be called "here at", "va" excludes "here" and includes
anywhere subjectively "near" but not close enough to be "at".

I think for large things like countries, "here" encompasses so much that
it ends at the edges, per normal cognition.  Since "vi" and "va" are more or
less tied to speaker listener distances, and our cognition is based on
communication between people in each other's physical presence, vi approaches
excluding "near" when the size of "in" exceeds thhe normal speaker listener
distance - probably about room-sized.

lojbab