From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 12 18:41:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 01:41:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 38664 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 01:41:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 01:41:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 01:41:19 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.c9.282ca3c5 (3956) for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:41:05 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tunlo To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c9.282ca3c5.2ab29c31_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_c9.282ca3c5.2ab29c31_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 5:37:13 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com 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. --part1_c9.282ca3c5.2ab29c31_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 5:37:13 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com 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. --part1_c9.282ca3c5.2ab29c31_boundary--