- 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 #11:
Re: corci1?
|
gleki (Sun Apr 30 08:16:11 2023)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > 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.
cocyzu'e is to be unwrapped as
zukte lo ka ko'a corci fi lo xadni be ce'u
?
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
-
|
|
|
|
|