RET: tunlo, x2 & zi'o

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>I think maybe it's saying that {tunlo} has no x2 place by itself,
>that a tanru or lujvo must be used if an x2 place is needed.  Is
>that correct?

correct

Rerversing your next two sentences so that you answer your own question:
>Suppose someone performs the action of gulping without necessarily
>swallowing any food or drink.

Clearly this is something that is possible, right?

>If so, this leads me to a question about gismu semantics.  Why does
>{tunlo} have no x2 place for the thing swallowed?

Because it is possible to swallow without swallowing anything.

> If {tunlo} had an x2 place, would
>we have to say {tunlo zi'o} in order to describe that action?
>
>I'm wondering whether {tunlo} was denied an x2 place as part of an
>effort to minimize the use of {zi'o}.

zi'o is a VERY recent invention, and still not widely accepted  (I won't
use it) though it is part of the language by inclusion in the refgrammar.
It certianly played no factor in any other design decision.

But you are close.  The gismu place structures were designed to have all
the places we thought necessary, and not ones that were optional of the
sort that one might now want to use zi'o with.  It was deemed better to ADD
 places in lujvo then try to find ways to take them away.

lojbab