jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

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 "corci"

Comment #1: corci1?
gleki (Tue Feb 9 16:33:13 2016)

what can go into corci1? is it an event like 'lo moklu cu se polje'?

Comment #2: Re: corci1?
Curtis W Franks (Tue Feb 9 21:28:36 2016)

gleki wrote:
> what can go into corci1? is it an event like 'lo moklu cu se polje'?


Probably. Lojban presently lacks a way for isolating and treating 'a
smile', for example, as an abstract noun/entity in and of itself. I suppose
that "si'o zi'o cisma" could be considered to represent this idea, but that
is much more experimental and probably off-topic.
For the time being, abstractions (si'o, nu, maybe ka) are probably the way
to go.

Comment #3: Re: corci1?
gleki (Fri Mar 18 14:36:13 2016)

krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > what can go into corci1? is it an event like 'lo moklu cu se polje'?
>
>
> Probably. Lojban presently lacks a way for isolating and treating 'a
> smile', for example, as an abstract noun/entity in and of itself. I
suppose
> that "si'o zi'o cisma" could be considered to represent this idea, but
that
> is much more experimental and probably off-topic.
> For the time being, abstractions (si'o, nu, maybe ka) are probably the
way
> to go.

How to say "I made a gesture".

Comment #5: Re: corci1?
Curtis W Franks (Sat Mar 19 16:13:08 2016)

gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > gleki wrote:
> > > what can go into corci1? is it an event like 'lo moklu cu se polje'?
> >
> >
> > Probably. Lojban presently lacks a way for isolating and treating 'a
> > smile', for example, as an abstract noun/entity in and of itself. I
> suppose
> > that "si'o zi'o cisma" could be considered to represent this idea, but
> that
> > is much more experimental and probably off-topic.
> > For the time being, abstractions (si'o, nu, maybe ka) are probably the
> way
> > to go.
>
> How to say "I made a gesture".

"mi (pu) cocygau", if you like the proposed cmarafsi.

Comment #6: Re: corci1?
gleki (Sat Mar 19 16:15:11 2016)

krtisfranks wrote:
> > How to say "I made a gesture".
> "mi (pu) cocygau", if you like the proposed cmarafsi.


ok, it'd probably be cocyzu'e.

Comment #8: Re: corci1?
Curtis W Franks (Sat Mar 19 16:32:13 2016)

gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > > How to say "I made a gesture".
> > "mi (pu) cocygau", if you like the proposed cmarafsi.
>
>
> ok, it'd probably be cocyzu'e.

That works at least as well.

Comment #4: when several members in x3?
gleki (Fri Mar 18 17:06:08 2016)

how would you specify motion of two fingers using x3 and x4? maybe delete
x3 instead?

Comment #7: Re: when several members in x3?
Curtis W Franks (Sat Mar 19 16:31:13 2016)

gleki wrote:
> how would you specify motion of two fingers using x3 and x4? maybe delete

> x3 instead?


I thought about it when originally defining the word, and there is a case
to be made for merging the current x3 and x4. They are certainly closely
related: the thing being utilized in 'motion' x4 is definitely x3.

I presently would probably use a "nu" or "si'o" abstraction for x4. I
do not want to assert that as precedent; it merely a cludgey fix until a
better solution is invented. But we may eventually decide that it is good.

In that case, I would have x3 be the two fingers (or even parts thereof;
for example: the distal and medial joints of the index and middle/long
fingers) and then have x4 be the event of their flexion and extension
(which are words that I have thought about adding); the thing that is being
flexed or extended is definitely x3. So, in that regard, x3 seems sort of
redundant. One cannot mouth-smile with one's arm: x3 must be included as an
argument in the "nu" clause bridi. But there are some reasons for the body
part terbri though. First, it is not that big of a moral loss to include it
and it may be referenced via "ri" (in the case of a single submitted
sumti) in the "nu" clause. Second, it is useful to have both terbri (and to
have themy remain separate) for the sake of asking questions, forming
lujvo, and for abbreviation (sometimes, one just wants to say "gesture with
the fingers" rather than "gesture with the fingers doing motion X"; of
course, this can also be accomplished via "tu'a", although the exact
relation must be inferred in such a case). And this all supposes that x4 is
a "nu" clause or maybe a "be"-linked sumti. But it may conceivably be
something different. In particular (and third), it could be the case that a
'macro' of sorts is submitted to x4. Maybe it is "grimace". All sorts of
body parts are involved in grimacing, and they may be used in the way that
they would during the course of a grimace independent of the others. So,
one may "grimace with their eyes", even as they keep the rest of their face
and body still/blank. In this sense, x3 restricts the domain of
consideration for what is being x4'ed.

Comment #9: Re: when several members in x3?
gleki (Sat Mar 19 17:34:21 2016)

krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > how would you specify motion of two fingers using x3 and x4? maybe
delete
>
> > x3 instead?

How would you specify what each finger is doing in x4? Using ri and "ri
xi re"?

Anyway, it seems to me x4 is just ta'i

Comment #10: Re: when several members in x3?
Curtis W Franks (Tue Mar 22 02:52:19 2016)

gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > gleki wrote:
> > > how would you specify motion of two fingers using x3 and x4? maybe
> delete
> >
> > > x3 instead?
>
> How would you specify what each finger is doing in x4? Using ri and "ri

> xi re"?
>
Well, I typically would describe the motion 'as a whole', such as: as a
group action (much like masses can have seemingly contradictory
properties), distributively (each x3 performs the action described by x4 on
its own (possibly in a sequence with the others)), or I would describe the
action as being 'atomic' in some sense (the body parts x3 are involved, but
it is not really that any one of them is performing an individual role in
the action x4; rather, it is the emergent sense that they together create
something more that is doing x4 - an example would be that the face or its
parts (x3) smile (x4): the entire system organizes in a consorted manner
that produces a smile and no individual part really does so (a smile
requires the eyes as much as the mouth)). Or, I would use "fa'u". Or,
your option might work. Or, I would just mention the action of each body
part in the abstraction(s) (if they are used) in x4; like I said, it is a
bit redundant and this can (I think: must) happen.

> Anyway, it seems to me x4 is just ta'i

At least approximately, it seems so.

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?