Subject: Re: [lojban] tunlo

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:41:05 EDT

In a message dated 9/11/2002 5:37:13 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> How does one "whip"? I considered adding that one, but I wouldn't
> know how to whip. I think I used {bikla} a couple of times, but
> only as a modifier, and basically meaning {suksa}. What is the
> basic action that is covered by {bikla}?
>>
A complex (and presumably unanalyzable in more basic ways) action involving a 
rapid foreward acceleration and deceleration of the bent forearm and 
simultaneously a retro acceleration and deceleration of the wrist.
Or, to do it the illegal way, what happens when you whip something with a 
whip -- minus the whip and the thing.

<<
So the odd tunlo place structure is a remnant of a discarded
theory?
It is not discarded, but its use has shifted -- because it did not help at 
all (being misconceived remarkly badly even for philosophers and 
psychologists) in its original home. The idea was to figure out what a 
person *really does* and then build a notion of action and the responsibility 
from that. The question of what a person really does in this sense is 
fruitful in medicine for retraining traumatics but it doesn't do diddly for 
ethics.

<<
>"kick, blink,
>step (just lifting the foot, not the whole process), bend, straighten" are
>some relatively easy cases;

{binxo lo korcu} and {binxo lo tolkorcu} for "bend" and "straighten".
"kick" would be {tikpa zi'o zi'o}, is that what you mean? and similarly
for "step" {stapa zi'o}. What would "blink" be?
I suppose (I don't read this stuff when it is not on the quiz) that a lujvo 
with an agentive terminal would be preferred. When I said "easy cases" I did 
*not* mean "for mmaking up lujvo for." Blinking is relatively easy to 
describe and isolate, though trickier to translate (hey, a useful lujvo on 
the list {kalgai} for "eyelid.") "rapidly close and open" is just going to 
come out way too long -- with the terminal {gau} in addition.

<<
I'm not sure I understand the principle involved.
What actions are totally under a person's control (assuming functioning 
plumbing -- non-functioning plumbing is another chapter which wasn't even on 
the final, but clearly gets one off a lot of responsibility hooks -- and this 
is "can" in the {kakne}, inherent potential sense anyhow)? You can't 
reliably murder a person because they might have a price on their head and 
beside you can't (reliably -- read as such henceforth) kill a person because 
they might have a heart attack before the bullet hit 'em or be wearing a good 
vest, and anyhow you can't shoot a person, since you might miss (or they 
duck) and, in any case, you can't fire a gun, since it may misfire in a 
variety of way, but, then, you can't pull the trigger, since it might stick. 
Hey, but you *can* curl your index finger when it is around that trigger.