Re: some gismu queries

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> (1) Why do so many gismi have a conditions sumti, when we
> (quite rightly) have {va'o}? Let all conditions sumti be
> deleted. I reckon if this was put to a vote there'd be an
> overwhelming majority in favour. Same for {ma'i} replacing
> by-standard places, etc. I remember Jorge & others having
> made the same point, but I forget if there's any good
> argument against it.

I agree, of course.

> (2) Is
>    jdari        jar     firm    'hard'
>    x1 is firm/hard/resistant/unyielding to force x2
> equivalent to {tinsa fe [inwardly]}?
>    tinsa                stiff
>    x1 is stiff/rigid/inflexible/resistant in direction
>    x2 against force x3

I think there is more to it than that. {jdari} only makes sense
of objects considered in their three dimensions. In other words,
the shape of the object is irrelevant. {tinsa} makes sense for
effectively one or two dimensional objects.

If we consider effectively one-dimensinal objects, there are
at least three degrees of rigidity: in the way that a pencil
lead is rigid but a copper wire is not, and in the way that
a copper wire is rigid but a rubber band is not. How to express
this in the x2 I have no idea.

For effectively two dimensional objects there are four ways
(more if the object is not totally symmetric): a metal sheet
is totally rigid, a paper sheet is flexible in one direction
at a time, a cloth sheet is flexible in both directions at
the same time, and a rubber sheet is flexible in both
directions and stretchable.

{tcena} covers the stretching part, but I don't know if that
means that {tinsa} has nothing to do with it or also covers it.
For effectively three dimensional objects, the only way for
there to be flexibility is if accompanied by some stretching
or compressing, unless we are allowed to flex into a forth
dimension.

In general, I haven't figured out yet how to deal with places
that are defined as "in direction x" or "in dimension x".
Any suggestions? How would you say {fe [inwardly]} anyway?


> (3) Is there a difference between:
>    kavbu        kav     capture  'catch'
>    x1 captures/catches/apprehends x2 with trap/restraint x3
>    pinfu        pif     prisoner 'captive'
>    x1 is a prisoner/captive of x2, restrained/held by means/force x3;
>
> Or, more specifically, is {kavbu} {x1=p1=k2 pifcoa x2=p2=k1
> x3=p3 tahi k3}?

It seems like it is.

Jorge