krtisfranks wrote:
> Why not have a terbri for what the result of the analysis is?


have in mind any semantic frames in gimste similar to the one you desire?

Comment #3: Re: Result/interpretation terbri

Curtis W Franks (Mon Sep 26 22:28:33 2016)

gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > Why not have a terbri for what the result of the analysis is? > > > have in mind any semantic frames in gimste similar to the one you desire? In a way, it is somewhat close to lijda3: "sharing common beliefs/practices/tenets including x3". The only this is that there is no sharing. It is just the 'belief' (meaning "interpretation") that is specific. It is also almost exactly backward in terbri structure from smuni. So, it would follow "se te se te se smuni" (there is probably a better way by which to say that).

Comment #4: Re: Result/interpretation terbri gleki (Tue Sep 27 06:26:04 2016) krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > Why not have a terbri for what the result of the analysis is? > > > > > > have in mind any semantic frames in gimste similar to the one you desire? > > In a way, it is somewhat close to lijda3: "sharing common > beliefs/practices/tenets including x3". The only this is that there is no > sharing. It is just the 'belief' (meaning "interpretation") that is > specific. > > It is also almost exactly backward in terbri structure from smuni. So, it > would follow "se te se te se smuni" (there is probably a better way by > which to say that). smuni is more frequent than lijda. So maybe a new word: x1 is exegesis (an explanation or critical interpretation) of text/book/object x2 done by x3; x1/x2 is exegetical; x3 are exegetes? Comment #5: Re: Result/interpretation terbri Curtis W Franks (Tue Sep 27 18:28:16 2016) gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > Why not have a terbri for what the result of the analysis is? > > > > > > > > > have in mind any semantic frames in gimste similar to the one you > desire? > > > > In a way, it is somewhat close to lijda3: "sharing common > > beliefs/practices/tenets including x3". The only this is that there is > no > > sharing. It is just the 'belief' (meaning "interpretation") that is > > specific. > > > > It is also almost exactly backward in terbri structure from smuni. So, > it > > would follow "se te se te se smuni" (there is probably a better way by > > which to say that). > > smuni is more frequent than lijda. So maybe a new word: > > x1 is exegesis (an explanation or critical interpretation) of > text/book/object x2 done by x3; x1/x2 is exegetical; x3 are exegetes? I am fine with that if you are. Does it break anything? I would include the current definition too, with relabelles terbri.