|From:||Dan Sulani <dnsulani@...>|
|Date:||Monday, July 22, 2002, 6:26|
(Note: I thought I sent this earlier, but my email got screwed-up.
I just tried to download the new posts on this list and
didn't see my post, so I'm sending it again.
If, in the end, there should be two identical
messages, please just ignore one of them.)
On 21 July, John Cowan wrote:
> Dan Sulani scripsit:
> > Then there's the question of _which_
> > granddaddy --- rtemmu doesn't have a general term;
> > it has to be either the "father's father" or the
> > "mother's father".
> Is there no general term for "ancestor"?
In fact, there is: r`iruvoxasax.
r`iru- = indicates an earlier stage of development
-vo- = far in the past (usually found, if it is expressed,
in the initial particle which precedes each
"process-word", before the rate-of-change markers)
xasax = generation
( BTW, I don't think that one could use | r`irusyr`vuh |
for "grandfather" because it's too general: it would mean
merely "a previous generation to the father"; thus,
grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc. Since a time depth
isn't specified (and at this point, can't be exactly specified in rtemmu
[hmmm, something to think about adding] )
there is no way to know precisely how far back the |r`iru- | goes. )
It's just that it seems to me that "ancestor" just doesn't
have the same flavor as "granddaddy". It's a bit too bland
for my taste.
(Sorry about the metaphors: you can tell I haven't had
breakfast yet! :-) )
> Or you could use
> father^100, which is probably what is meant.
What I meant to say in my earlier post was that
I understood that the writer was exaggerating ---
given 4-5 generations per 100 years, the fossil,
at around 7 million years old, would precede us by
only 280,000-350,000 generations
(if my math is correct),
nowhere near a googol!
My question simply was, if we are to exaggerate, then,
retaining the use of "googol",
by a litttle (multiple), or go all the way (exponential)?
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a
A word is an awesome thing.