- 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 "xrotu"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
Why the symmetry?
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Mar 20 03:13:20 2015)
|
I think that one can be affectionate with something that does not reciprocate.
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Why the symmetry?
|
Brett Williams (Fri Mar 20 04:25:40 2015)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > I think that one can be affectionate with something that > does not reciprocate.
Ta'o, this adversarial format isn't actually appropriate for sensitive subjects. It would generally be considered appropriate in such a small group situation to say something kind before criticizing someone else's work in such a manner and I think we'd do well to adopt such a custom here as well.
Ta'onai, it's possible to feel that you are being xrotu with something or someone who doesn't actually experience being xrocni, but it's a misperception. For instance to do something that's actually harmful to someone isn't to be in xrotu with them simply because you feel that you intended to be.
This is important to me because what I'm centrally discussing is real encounter, real moments of relationship. The related emotions and intentions are secondary to the actual mutual symmetrical (or rather, more deeply, identity-dissolving) encounter. The actual successful encounter of xrotu is what the emotions and intentions are about, what they're based upon. To merely intend that encounter is different from and less fundamental than truly mutually experiencing it.
|
-
Comment #3:
Re: Why the symmetry?
|
gleki (Fri Mar 20 07:05:54 2015)
|
selckiku wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > I think that one can be affectionate with something that > > does not reciprocate. > > > Ta'o, this adversarial format isn't actually appropriate for sensitive > subjects. It would generally be considered appropriate in such a small > group situation to say something kind before criticizing someone else's > work in such a manner and I think we'd do well to adopt such a custom here > as well. > > Ta'onai, it's possible to feel that you are being xrotu with something or
> someone who doesn't actually experience being xrocni, but it's a > misperception. For instance to do something that's actually harmful to > someone isn't to be in xrotu with them simply because you feel that you > intended to be. > > This is important to me because what I'm centrally discussing is real > encounter, real moments of relationship. The related emotions and > intentions are secondary to the actual mutual symmetrical (or rather, more > deeply, identity-dissolving) encounter. The actual successful encounter of > xrotu is what the emotions and intentions are about, what they're based > upon. To merely intend that encounter is different from and less > fundamental than truly mutually experiencing it.
Then maybe one place xrotu could be better with xrotu1 as a te sumti of plural type.
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Why the symmetry?
|
Brett Williams (Fri Mar 20 17:59:00 2015)
|
gleki wrote: > > Then maybe one place xrotu could be better with > xrotu1 as a te sumti of plural type.
I agree actually in theory. The problem is that it's much more important to have it parallel the shape of gletu so they can be smoothly contrasted. If in practice it were possible to harmonize them by having gletu change to one plural place for its structure then that might be the way to go, but alas both estalbished usage and natlang misintuitions weigh against that change.
It's also not clear yet how exactly these structures relate to events of gletu or xrotu with more than two participants. It could be that additional participants can get additional places and they're actually infinite arity. I guess that's what I'd prefer, but again that requires some change to our established intuitions.
|
-
|
|
Comment #5:
Re: Why the symmetry?
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Mar 21 18:52:09 2015)
|
selckiku wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > I think that one can be affectionate with something that > > does not reciprocate. > > > Ta'o, this adversarial format isn't actually appropriate for sensitive > subjects. It would generally be considered appropriate in such a small > group situation to say something kind before criticizing someone else's > work in such a manner and I think we'd do well to adopt such a custom here > as well.
I agree. I was not and have never tried to he adversarial toward/with you or any other jbopre, but I can see how you could feel that way (actually, this relates to the discussion at hand: intention is not always realized). I will strive to always express myself in a more respectful and courteous manner. Additionally, I will try to follow the self-imposed rule (toward at least you) that always express a positive response to a proposal before saying anything negative against it; I will literally follow the addage of not saying anything at all unless slI have something nice to say. I think that such practice will go a long way toward building up friendlier interaction between us (at least, explicitly) and it will clarify my opinions. I have actually always admired your work and held you in the highest esteem. However, I think that I have had a negativity bias in my interactions with you and perhaps with the community in general: I have been much quicker to point out where one is wrong, to point out potential issues, then I have been to point out where one is right, to point out the good qualities of the spirit of their work. But those latter aspects are almost always present and I recognize them in my head. For example, I like this word and think that it is quite useful; I also find it pleasing to read and say; in fact, I upvoted it immediately. But you would not know any of this because I failed to mention it, which is a large fault of mine.
> Ta'onai, it's possible to feel that you are being xrotu with something or
> someone who doesn't actually experience being xrocni, but it's a > misperception. For instance to do something that's actually harmful to > someone isn't to be in xrotu with them simply because you feel that you > intended to be. > > This is important to me because what I'm centrally discussing is real > encounter, real moments of relationship. The related emotions and > intentions are secondary to the actual mutual symmetrical (or rather, more > deeply, identity-dissolving) encounter. The actual successful encounter of > xrotu is what the emotions and intentions are about, what they're based > upon. To merely intend that encounter is different from and less > fundamental than truly mutually experiencing it.
I understand better now, thank you. I was not intending to critique so much as wondering what your goal/understanding/intention with/of this word was. I do find this contrast and utility to be real-life important and beneficial.
|
-
|
|
|
|