- 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 "tamsmi"
[parent]
[root]
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
|
-
|
|
|
|