RE: [ceqli] Re: Place structure - ceqli messages

On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:12 PM, li_sasxsek@nutter.net wrote:

> And with a few verbs that have, so to speak, an obvious 'double
object,' i. e.,
> seem incomplete without including both. Interestingly, 'voy' (go) in
English
> can't take a DO, but in Ceqli it can:

> go voy Xikagozo.

But this may not be obvious to some. "voy" here is transitive meaning
"go to". To some this could be construed at "come (from)" ("come" and
"go" are not always separate words in some languages.) so this could be
"I go to Chicago" or "I come from Chicago" without any way to know how
Chicago relates to "going" unless we deefine individual words for
different types of "going".

> And here's where I'm fuzzy. Should it have an indirect object, for
'origin'?

> go voy xikagozo denverzo. I go to Chicago from Denver?

This is the problem with Loglan/Lojban's place structure. A learner
needs then to know the precise meaning of "voy" to know all the correct
places. In your example it's.

X1 goes to X2 from X3.

But if someone only related "voy" with motion then they may think.

X1 goes from X2 to X3.

Giving "voy" a meaning of just "going" without being specific, then
using prepositions to show the specifics would be better. Especially
when having to extend the format to include more possible arguments
like.

X1 goes to X2 from X3 via X4 transported by X5

> Or will that result in overdoing the place structure thing? I'm
beginning to
> think it might.

I agree with the others. Just have one place for the direct object, and
in some cases it may even be best to assign an intransitive meaning,
then use prepositions for all other arguments.

I'm convinced. Actually, I have 'vyo' as a reversal for 'come', so the

sentence could read:

go vyo denverzo voy xikagozo.

Rex May

rmay@hidden.email

1-970-221-5528

Daily cartoon at:

http://www.humorousmaximus.com/cartoons/rex_may.php

See some of my other cartoons at:

http://homepage.mac.com/rmay/