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.