Why did you include the material into the definition?
Please note that blikubli does not have a material place, so I do not
understand why vonblikubli has one. vonblikubli and it’s relatives
should parallel the place structure of blikubli as close as possible to
have more regularity.
I have elimited the material place of blikubli for a reason. bliku is
the seltau of the veljvo of blikubli and the material place is clearly a
dependent place of x1. If you know what the x1 is, you also know the x2
since a bliku can only have one material. The dimensionality place of
kubli, on the other hand, got eliminated as well because bliku
explicitly needs three dimensions.
Please also note that blikubli is very closely related to kubybli.
kubybli is almost the same as blikubli, but it _does_ include a
material place, since this time, it is in the tertau of its veljvo and one
should rarely (at best: never) elide tertau places. So I guess
vonkubybli instead of vonblikubli is what you should have used for the
place structure you chose. Finally, vonblikubli and vonkubybli and
their relatives can peacefully coexist and differ only in wheater they
include a material place or not, suggestion that blikubli may refer to
an abstract regular polyhedron (but being a real-life object is not
explicitly excluded), while a kubybli is an real-life (implied by the
material place) object in the shape of a regular polyhedron. One can think
of kubybli as a specialized form of blikubli, although the current
definitions don’t say that explicitly. But they do it, sort of,
implicitly. Oh, I am following the conventions suggested in the CLL, if
you haven’t noticed yet.
Suggestions summary:
(1) remove the material place from vonblikubli.
(2) if you insist on a material place, take the current definition of
vonblukubli and use it for vonkubybli instead.
(3) suggestions (1) and (2) also apply to all lujvo of a similar shape,
like pavrelblikubli, and so on.

If nobody protests or reacts within seven days, I do these changes by
myselves.

Comment #2: Re: The x2 (material place) should be deleted

Sebastian Frjds (Sun Aug 11 15:46:17 2013)

Wuzzy wrote: > Why did you include the material into the definition? > Please note that blikubli does not have a material place, so I do not > understand why vonblikubli has one. vonblikubli and it’s relatives > should parallel the place structure of blikubli as close as possible to > have more regularity. > I have elimited the material place of blikubli for a reason. bliku is > the seltau of the veljvo of blikubli and the material place is clearly a > dependent place of x1. If you know what the x1 is, you also know the x2 > since a bliku can only have one material. The dimensionality place of > kubli, on the other hand, got eliminated as well because bliku > explicitly needs three dimensions. > Please also note that blikubli is very closely related to kubybli. > kubybli is almost the same as blikubli, but it _does_ include a > material place, since this time, it is in the tertau of its veljvo and one > should rarely (at best: never) elide tertau places. So I guess > vonkubybli instead of vonblikubli is what you should have used for the > place structure you chose. Finally, vonblikubli and vonkubybli and > their relatives can peacefully coexist and differ only in wheater they > include a material place or not, suggestion that blikubli may refer to > an abstract regular polyhedron (but being a real-life object is not > explicitly excluded), while a kubybli is an real-life (implied by the > material place) object in the shape of a regular polyhedron. One can think > of kubybli as a specialized form of blikubli, although the current > definitions don’t say that explicitly. But they do it, sort of, > implicitly. Oh, I am following the conventions suggested in the CLL, if > you haven’t noticed yet. > Suggestions summary: > (1) remove the material place from vonblikubli. > (2) if you insist on a material place, take the current definition of > vonblukubli and use it for vonkubybli instead. > (3) suggestions (1) and (2) also apply to all lujvo of a similar shape, > like pavrelblikubli, and so on. > > If nobody protests or reacts within seven days, I do these changes by > myselves. Ok, I agree. I think I should go back and read CLL even more closely about what has been written about dependent places. I really want to know those things completely, so I don't do any unnecessary mistakes. After all I add a lot of words to jbovlaste imu'ibo mi nelci lo nu go'i. And I don't want my work to mess upp things. So good job of you to correct things when you see them!

Comment #3: Re: The x2 (material place) should be deleted

Sebastian Frjds (Sun Aug 11 15:46:31 2013)

Wuzzy wrote: > Why did you include the material into the definition? > Please note that blikubli does not have a material place, so I do not > understand why vonblikubli has one. vonblikubli and it’s relatives > should parallel the place structure of blikubli as close as possible to > have more regularity. > I have elimited the material place of blikubli for a reason. bliku is > the seltau of the veljvo of blikubli and the material place is clearly a > dependent place of x1. If you know what the x1 is, you also know the x2 > since a bliku can only have one material. The dimensionality place of > kubli, on the other hand, got eliminated as well because bliku > explicitly needs three dimensions. > Please also note that blikubli is very closely related to kubybli. > kubybli is almost the same as blikubli, but it _does_ include a > material place, since this time, it is in the tertau of its veljvo and one > should rarely (at best: never) elide tertau places. So I guess > vonkubybli instead of vonblikubli is what you should have used for the > place structure you chose. Finally, vonblikubli and vonkubybli and > their relatives can peacefully coexist and differ only in wheater they > include a material place or not, suggestion that blikubli may refer to > an abstract regular polyhedron (but being a real-life object is not > explicitly excluded), while a kubybli is an real-life (implied by the > material place) object in the shape of a regular polyhedron. One can think > of kubybli as a specialized form of blikubli, although the current > definitions don’t say that explicitly. But they do it, sort of, > implicitly. Oh, I am following the conventions suggested in the CLL, if > you haven’t noticed yet. > Suggestions summary: > (1) remove the material place from vonblikubli. > (2) if you insist on a material place, take the current definition of > vonblukubli and use it for vonkubybli instead. > (3) suggestions (1) and (2) also apply to all lujvo of a similar shape, > like pavrelblikubli, and so on. > > If nobody protests or reacts within seven days, I do these changes by > myselves. Ok, I agree. I think I should go back and read CLL even more closely about what has been written about dependent places. I really want to know those things completely, so I don't do any unnecessary mistakes. After all I add a lot of words to jbovlaste imu'ibo mi nelci lo nu go'i. And I don't want my work to mess upp things. So good job of you to correct things when you see them!