I would argue that all geometric shapes are idealized/conceptualized
shapes, and the fact that both are "of" something (x2) only strengthens
this direction. Meanwhile, I cannot think of any conceptualization of the
shape of some actually manifested entity as being anything other than its
geometric "ideal" form.

Comment #2: Re: How does this word differ from tarmi?

Curtis W Franks (Fri Jun 26 04:49:17 2015)

krtisfranks wrote: > I would argue that all geometric shapes are idealized/conceptualized > shapes, and the fact that both are "of" something (x2) only strengthens > this direction. Meanwhile, I cannot think of any conceptualization of the > shape of some actually manifested entity as being anything other than its > geometric "ideal" form. I would accept this definition being "x2 is the n-dimensional space-shape of x2" (where n >= 3), which is quite another matter. I guess that a model is not quite the same thing as a geometric figure, but in my mind, they are close cousins. Lots of models have pictures and most models have mathematics associated with them: it is a two-way street; the distinction seems at best artificial. But, the more I think aloud, the more I can see someone wanting a word for "geometric figure". In that case, canlu is not the correct word for it, since it is restricted to hypervolumes of dimension at least 3. But whatever word is chosen for this purpose should be described as "geometric figure" not only "shape".

Comment #3: Re: How does this word differ from tarmi? Jonathan (Fri Jun 26 12:30:27 2015) 1. tarmi can refer to any sort of "ideal form" or modelistic likeness, not just the physical / geometric form. 2. I only based this lujvo on the existing lujvo caltaicmaci.