rlpowell wrote:
> da tamsmi de lo bolci tu'a lo nenri .i ku'i da tamsmi de lo bliku tu'a
lo
> bartu

Well, that would be:

da e de tamsmi lo bolci tu'a lo nenri i ku'i da e de
tamsmi lo bliku tu'a lo bartu

so that doesn't really make it more clear.

> Certainly in the first case you wouldn't say that da and de both
resemble
> an (idealized) ball?

Why not? They both look like balls in their outsides.
What else could it mean to say that they resemble each
other in that they have the outer shape of a ball?

> Besidse, the point is that the x3 is a platonic ideal; nothing *really*
> resembles it, it's more of a concept.

But why make it so complicated? Why can't we just say
that x resembles a ball and y resembles a ball? What
do we gain by separating it into three places, x1, x2
and x3, so that x3 is only for platonic ideals?

> Where this place structure comes from, I have no idea, but clearly
x3=t1,
> and x4=s3.

But x4 has to be lo ka tarmi too. If they are dissociated,
then we have "x1 and x2 both have shape x3 and are
similar in property x4".

mi'e xorxes

Comment #9: Re: Fourth place.

Robin Lee Powell (Mon Nov 22 20:55:05 2004)

xorxes wrote: > rlpowell wrote: > > da tamsmi de lo bolci tu'a lo nenri .i ku'i da tamsmi de lo bliku tu'a > lo > > bartu > > Well, that would be: > > da e de tamsmi lo bolci tu'a lo nenri i ku'i da e de > tamsmi lo bliku tu'a lo bartu > > so that doesn't really make it more clear. > > > Certainly in the first case you wouldn't say that da and de both > resemble > > an (idealized) ball? > > Why not? They both look like balls in their outsides. No, on their *insides*. > What else could it mean to say that they resemble each > other in that they have the outer shape of a ball? Because they are round on the inside. > > Besidse, the point is that the x3 is a platonic ideal; nothing *really* > > resembles it, it's more of a concept. > > But why make it so complicated? Because this is how the ma'oste currently defines it! Jesus, is a little backwards compatibility worth *this* much of a fight? -Robin

Comment #10: Re: Fourth place. Jorge Llambias (Mon Nov 22 21:13:54 2004) rlpowell wrote: > xorxes wrote: > > rlpowell wrote: > > > Certainly in the first case you wouldn't say that da and de both > > resemble > > > an (idealized) ball? > > > > Why not? They both look like balls in their outsides. > > No, on their *insides*. Right. The point is the same. > > What else could it mean to say that they resemble each > > other in that they have the outer shape of a ball? > > Because they are round on the inside. All right: What else could it mean to say that they resemble each other in that they have the inner shape of a ball? > > But why make it so complicated? > > Because this is how the ma'oste currently defines it! > > Jesus, is a little backwards compatibility worth *this* much of a fight? I don't care all that much how tamsmi ends up being defined. As I said, it is unlikely that the word will ever be actually used. But I won't write definitions that I think are wrong just because they appear in the ma'oste. Since we can have two competing definitions here, there is no need to fight. People who want to keep the ma'oste definition can vote for it, and those who don't think it makes much sense can vote for something else. I wouldn't even be sure how to write the ma'oste definition in Lojban. mi'e xorxes Comment #11: Re: Fourth place. Robin Lee Powell (Mon Nov 22 21:48:09 2004) > > > But why make it so complicated? > > > > Because this is how the ma'oste currently defines it! > > > > Jesus, is a little backwards compatibility worth *this* much of a fight? > > I don't care all that much how tamsmi ends up being > defined. As I said, it is unlikely that the word will > ever be actually used. But I won't write definitions > that I think are wrong just because they appear in > the ma'oste. Since we can have two competing > definitions here, there is no need to fight. People > who want to keep the ma'oste definition can vote for > it, and those who don't think it makes much sense can > vote for something else. That's a lovely idea, except that the ma'oste defines "te tai" and "ve tai", and I'm doing the section that has them. > I wouldn't even be sure how > to write the ma'oste definition in Lojban. x1 cu simsa x2 fi'o tarmi x3 x4 -Robin