From <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Tue Sep 19 00:08:09 1995
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (psuvm.psu.edu [128.118.56.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id AAA22909 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 00:08:03 -0400
Message-Id: <199509190408.AAA22909@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3786; Mon, 18 Sep 95 22:39:31 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0269; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:48:51 -0400
Date:         Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:44:59 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      stiff
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR

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