stiff

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> > (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.

So that's where {jdari} comes in?

> 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?

{fe lo nerfaa (be le noa)}, or {fe lo nenri (be le noa)}?
For dimensions there are lujvo from {cimde}. You know this, so
there must be some problem I'm failing to see.

---
And#1