- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "maksi"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
Asymmetry
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Mar 6 08:43:37 2016)
|
This word is asymmetric with "dikca". For the purpose of practicality, this asymmetry may be justified. For the purpose of aesthetics and theory, it is not. Additionally, it could be argued that the "producing field" model describes everything necessary, and with fewer terbri (and ones which are arguably easier to use); so, "dikca" could/should switch to it. On the other hand, fields can be rather difficult to describe, especially in detail, so switching to this model could be taken to be kicking the can down the road for later; the simplicity is only at the first level and there are no free lunches. Still, I think that this model is more robust.
Alternatively, we could have a word for "x_1 produces a field of type/for interaction x_2 with description/properties/model x_3; x_1 interacts (x_2)-ly in manner x_3; x_1 does/produces x_2(-al field); x_1 (x_2)-s".
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Asymmetry
|
gleki (Sun Mar 6 12:54:01 2016)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > This word is asymmetric with "dikca". For the purpose of practicality, > this asymmetry may be justified. For the purpose of aesthetics and theory, > it is not. Additionally, it could be argued that the "producing field" > model describes everything necessary, and with fewer terbri (and ones which > are arguably easier to use); so, "dikca" could/should switch to it. On > the other hand, fields can be rather difficult to describe, especially in
> detail, so switching to this model could be taken to be kicking the can > down the road for later; the simplicity is only at the first level and > there are no free lunches. Still, I think that this model is more robust. > > Alternatively, we could have a word for "x_1 produces a field of type/for
> interaction x_2 with description/properties/model x_3; x_1 interacts > (x_2)-ly in manner x_3; x_1 does/produces x_2(-al field); x_1 (x_2)-s".
once BPFK changed an almost unusable definition of mabla. These dikca/maksi can be similar in that regard. Although, BPFK had no one to fix them.
I suggested letri = x1 shows electric properties in x2 (property of x1) magneti = x1 shows magnetic properties in x2 (property of x1)
with electro-magnetic being "letri je magnetic" although ANY other logical connective like ja, jonai would do.
polarity etc. could go into x2.
Your "field" would be a different word. Existing dikca and maksi can just be made obsolete. They were used almost always in tanru that is via cheating predicate logic.
|
-
|
|
|