What's wrong with this lujvo? Why has it been downvoted?

Comment #2: Re: What's wrong?

Wuzzy (Tue Nov 4 23:38:02 2014)

Ilmen wrote: > What's wrong with this lujvo? Why has it been downvoted? Nothing is wrong with the lujvo and it hasn’t been downvoted. It’s the definition (the seljvo) I don’t like / grasp. I don’t know how to even theoretically use this term properly because of the low quality of the definition. The definition is too vague to me. The concept of the “intensity of an event” is unclear to me. I don’t know what the x2 is for.

Comment #3: Re: What's wrong? gleki (Wed Nov 5 07:21:56 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > Ilmen wrote: > > What's wrong with this lujvo? Why has it been downvoted? > Nothing is wrong with the lujvo and it hasn’t been downvoted. > > It’s the definition (the seljvo) I don’t like / grasp. > I don’t know how to even theoretically use this term properly because of > the low quality of the definition. > > The definition is too vague to me. > The concept of the “intensity of an event” is unclear to me. > I don’t know what the x2 is for. Usage examples showing why we need this word are needed. In fact usage examples should be made a rule for every new word added. Comment #5: Re: What's wrong? Ilmen (Wed Nov 5 14:49:50 2014) gleki wrote: > Usage examples showing why we need this word are needed. > > In fact usage examples should be made a rule for every new word added. Example added. Comment #4: Re: What's wrong? Ilmen (Wed Nov 5 14:46:39 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > Ilmen wrote: > > What's wrong with this lujvo? Why has it been downvoted? > Nothing is wrong with the lujvo and it hasn’t been downvoted. > > It’s the definition (the seljvo) I don’t like / grasp. > I don’t know how to even theoretically use this term properly because of > the low quality of the definition. > > The definition is too vague to me. > The concept of the “intensity of an event” is unclear to me. > I don’t know what the x2 is for. coi la .uuzít. I made this lujvo with the assumption that dukse = "x1 is/does too much x2 (property) for x3 to happen". dukse is usually used this way on IRC. For example, lo ractu cu dukse lo ka sutra ku lo nu lo gerku cu kavbu vo'a ("the rabbit is too fast for the dog to capture it"). Then, faurdu'e was meant to be the jvajvo "fasnu+dukse" = x1 dukse lo ka fasnu ku x2 (= x1 happens too much for x2 to happen). Maybe my definition wasn't clear enough, I'll try to clarify it. Please let me know if you still disagree with assigning this meaning to this lujvo. (In the meantime, I created a zi'evla equivalent fanduse for this meaning.) Comment #6: Re: What's wrong? Wuzzy (Wed Nov 5 18:53:15 2014) > I made this lujvo with the assumption that dukse = "x1 is/does too much x2 > (property) for x3 to happen". dukse is usually used this way on IRC. Then IRC is wrong, because this definition differes from that one in the dictionary. It would be better to create a new word for this “IRC definition” instead of overloading the meaning of “dukse”. > Then, faurdu'e was meant to be the jvajvo "fasnu+dukse" = x1 dukse lo ka > fasnu ku x2 (= x1 happens too much for x2 to happen). I can’t imagine how anything can happen “too much”. Either something happens or it doesn’t. I wonder how this word can be useful. Most importantly, you still did not specify what can go into x2. Specify this properly and you get my upvote. I am aware of the example, I think I get a vague idea, but I am still not sure.