Re: {cikre} as fat gismu

[Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la bob cusku di'e

>     cikre              repair               'fix'
>     x1 repairs/mends/fixes x2 for use x3 by user x4
>
> Every repair that I have encountered in my life has been for some
> purpose.  I have never met an unmotivated repair.

Maybe an x3 is necessary, although it is strange that {spofu}
doesn't have anything equivalent.

In any case, I don't think x3 is the motivation of the repair, but
rather the use to which the repaired object can be put.

> (I've seen repairs
> that were not necessary for the object or institution `fixed', but
> these repairs had uses: to make money for the repairer or to hurt
> competitors.)

That's a use of {le nu cikre}, not of {le se cikre}.

> Likewise, fixes or repairs have an intended user.  They
> must be!  There is no way to avoid making a repair for some user.  If
> the work is not done for a user, it is not a repair, but some other
> activity, such as art.

A mechanic repairs a car. The x3 is the customary use of a car, but
what is the x4? The owner of the car? A generic human being? A generic
driver? It is totally irrelevant who will use the car, to the act of
repairing it. And anyway, the potential user is a part of the x3.


> Also, as a practical matter, {te cikre} is a very useful expression,
> since it defines what a rebuilt artifact is used for, which may be
> different than its original purpose.  This will become more important
> as recycling becomes more important.


Yes, x3 seems ok. But x4 is redundant.


Jorge