- 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 "cukla"
Comment #1:
Characteristics
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jan 16 06:49:53 2016)
|
I think that the shape should be mostly round (but not necessarily perfectly/ideally circular).
Additionally, it might be that the default assumption is that, in the abstract(ion), the shape is (essentially) closed. I normally would consider spirals to be "round"/"circular", but since they qualify (according to the original definitions) as djine (which has, in its nature, roundness but which seems to be more forgiving/general (including with dimensionality but not restricted thereto)) in Lojban, I think that they should not qualify as cukla. Or, of course, we can have another word.
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Characteristics
|
gleki (Sat Jan 16 07:40:07 2016)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > I think that the shape should be mostly round (but not necessarily > perfectly/ideally circular). > > Additionally, it might be that the default assumption is that, in the > abstract(ion), the shape is (essentially) closed. I normally would consider > spirals to be "round"/"circular", but since they qualify (according to the > original definitions) as djine (which has, in its nature, roundness but > which seems to be more forgiving/general (including with dimensionality but > not restricted thereto)) in Lojban, I think that they should not qualify as > cukla. Or, of course, we can have another word.
Actually this "djine might not be closed" is rather confusing. A normal geometically formalized definitions of "round","circle","spiral","ellipse" + similar concepts for 3D etc. are necessary imo preferably not via proliferating new words but instead by planning better place structures or even bridi
|
-
|
|
|