No Subject

At one point they all (?) were identical to klama in place structure.
But the lean gismu people wanted redundancy eliminated.  So now you
bajra klama or cadzu klama.  Indeed, I think there are remnants of the
old place structure in some examples in the draft textbook.

In other cases, places were added to account for cultural or
metaphorical uses of words.  You can walk on your hands - so we added
thhe specific limbs.  The gaits of 4-legged animal motions apply to
various degrees of running (you could say that walking is a specific
kind of running gait in a 4-legged animal).  Direction was added to
climb when we expanded it to include clamber and crawl, which tend to be
related etymologically in many languages. plipe was always a pain
because its English and other language equivalents tend to be used for
both jumping/springing up jumping over, and jumping from/to. the
specificity of the place structure was the best way we could think of to
clarify the core meaning and exclude those things we did not think fit
the core concept (or force them to be lujvo).

MANY gismu place structure decisions were made ad hoc based on specific
pragmatic usage considerations, and NOT on the basis of creating some
ideal mapping of concept space.  Indeed I think we have explicitly
REJECTED the idea that the gismu should be considered anything like an
ideal - that our vocabulary should be in some way a philosopher's
language combining pure essences to analytically cover all concepts.
Many conlangs have tried for the latter, and we didn't want to.

>[1] Yes, there is a source and destination, but they're not relevant to
>Alice in the middle of the fall; if I recall correctly, she wonders at
>one point whether the fall will ever end.  That would currently have to
>be translated as wondering whether a terbridi has a value (!).

clearly la alis. za'o zo'o farlu ma

Whether a place is relevant is less important than whether it exists.
You could always use lo cimni.

The tougher question is xu lo mluni cu farlu ma ma.

lojbab