[jbovlaste] Re: stuffed animal

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

That's a good point.  Why was it defined that way.  It seems like most words of this type usually describe the state (cikna comes to mind) and allow for -bi'o or -gau to turn it into doing the thing or becoming the state.

Last I had heard, there is a %0 chance that a gismu definition will be changed.  If this is still true, what would be the best way to go about this?  lujvo definitions are whatever we choose to make them and don't HAVE to be built exactly from their expanded tanru.  We could ignore this weird definition and just define the lujvo as if tisna has a state-type definition.

2010/7/21 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>

> The English Wikipedia mentions stuffed toy, stuffie, plush toy, soft toy, and cuddly toy.
>
> Of the languages I understand, English is the only language in which the word for stuffed animal explicitly includes its stuffedness. Other languages use words based on its purpose (cuddling/hugging), or its composition (fabric).

In Spanish it's "peluche", which comes from French (as does the
English "plush").

One problem with "tisna" is that it doesn't mean "stuffed" but
"becomes stuffed", it refers to the change of state, not the state. At
least if we take the gi'uste definition seriously. It would be more
useful to have a basic word for stuffed than for becoming stuffed,
because the change of state is easier to derive from the final state
(by adding -bi'o) than viceversa.

("Stuffed animal" sounds like something you would eat for Thanksgiving, btw.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes