WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > BPFK Section: Distance > BPFK Section: Distance

BPFK Section: Distance

posts: 2388

{vi} or something very like it has been used since about 1960 Loglan. The institutional memory on it is very stong — to the point where I wonder why {bu'u} got created at all. Philosophically, there is not "real" distinction between here and near here and between that and there — they are all fuzzy values of highly variable curvature. In a given context they sort things out but none has fundamental status, alway relative to a context. And as Mad Ludwig sorta said "You can't tell a person to stand exactly here" (as opposed to nearly here).
Jorge Llambías wrote:--- wrote:
> I'm a bit worried about throwing away the "at or a short distance from"
> reading of vi, because this has so much usage. In fact, I'm not even sure how
> to say "near the tree" besides "vi le tricu".

{ki le tricu viku}, {ne'a le tricu}, etc.

Most of the use of {vi} is for "at" though, not for "a short distance from",
so {bu'u} would be the usual replacement.

> Even other VI/ZI cmavo can take the point of origin as an argument, such as
> "puza le nu spoja" = "a while before the explosion".

{pu le nu spoja zaku} = "a while before the explosion".
{pu le nu spoja za lo cacra} = "an hour before the explosion".

> I agree that there needs to be a way to specify the distance, but I don't
> think VI/ZI is it.

That's the most natural place for it, in my opinion.

One possibility would be to let {vi} keep the "bu'u/ne'a" meaning
as an exception, just to preserve usage. The others are hardly used
as sumti tcita.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!


Show posts: