> gleki wrote:
> > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > Can we specify the more exact shape/pattern/frequency/waveform of
> > > zigzag by having a second terbri here?
> > >
> > > By the way, the use of the word "line" in (paraphrasing) "line with
> > > zigzag shape" is rather... unpleasant. Perhaps we should just
> > say:
> > > "x1 is a zigzag shape with pattern/frequency/shape of
> > x2,
> > > where x3 (shape) interpolates/exterpolates from common fixed point
> > each
> > > zigzag x4 (default: 'center' of each zigzag)".
> > > So, I with x3, I can draw a zigzaggy line, a zigzaggy circle, etc.
> > I wish u put all of them into one table and i want the place structure
> > the same for all forms (wave, zigzag, diagonal etc.) like
> > x1 is a "zigzag" (an ideal non-material form) with properties x2,x3,x4
> > The same for boxna, digno etc.
> > The materialized object is jarco or se tarmi or mupli or
> > like that.
> I will try to start doing that. But for those three examples, I do not
> really see their inherent relation. Most notably, I am not even really
> sure what a zigzag /is/ in any precise/rigourous sense. I related it to
> waves (by having a "unit of zigzaggity" that can be described in terms
> waveform) because I could not really think of how else to do so and
> because that relationship might be useful. I do not think that a zigzag
> is actually a wave, so to speak, since it down not (necessarily)
> propagate- that description was merely a pictorial/intuitive means of
> encapsulating "zigzag shape"/a "zig"/a "zag".
> Likewise, I am undecided concerning whether a zigzag is a shape, a
> "pattern", or a deformation of a shape. Thus, I do not really think that
> it should have the same properties as, say, digno which is some sort
> geometric object descriptor that is pretty well-defined.
> But, yes, in general, I will try to organize like-meaning words
Okay, then we have the following semantic classes: shape, distortion of
shape, pattern, material object (lo se tarmi), may be something else.