luka: Difference between revisions

734 bytes removed ,  6 months ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 14:
The [[semantic space]] of {{tp|luka}} includes any and all parts of human upper limbs, such as the arms, elbows, hands and fingers; similarly to how {{tp|[[noka]]}} can refer to legs or feet. As a [[transitive verb]], it may refer to the act of interacting with something using said limbs, such as placing one's hand, hitting, petting, among other meanings.
 
When referring to non-human creatures, {{tp|luka}} usually refers to paws (for animals)<ref name="juwan-paw"/> and more commonly to wings than claws (for birds).<ref name="juwan-luka-wasojuwan2023"/>
 
In {{w|sign language}}, {{tp|luka}} refers to an individual sign and the act of signing itself.
Line 28:
==={{tp|ku}}===
For {{ku|en}}, respondents in {{tp|[[ma pona pi toki pona]]}} translated these English words as {{tp|luka}}:
 
{{ku data}}
 
Line 38 ⟶ 39:
==References==
<references>
<ref name="juwan-luka-wasojuwan2023">{{cite Discord|name={{tok|jan Juwan}}|username=juwan.|url=https://discord.com/channels/301377942062366741/828474497865744444/1165309387498340473|message type=Informal poll|channel={{tok|sona-kulupu}}|server={{tp|ma pona pi toki pona}}|quote="{{tok|luka ponawaso li seme?}}"}} Data retrieved on |retrived=23 October 2023.}}
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Option
! Votes
|-
! It means "Wing"
| 55
|-
! It means "Claw"
| 6
|-
Line 52 ⟶ 53:
| 47
|}
</ref>
<ref name="juwan-paw">{{cite Discord|name={{tok|jan Juwan}}|username=juwan.|url=https://discord.com/channels/301377942062366741/828474497865744444/1165309387498340473|message type=Informal poll|channel={{tok|sona-kulupu}}|server={{tp|ma pona pi toki pona}}|quote="how would you translate "paw" as in an animal's paw"}} Data retrieved on 23 October 2023.
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Option
! Votes
|-
! {{tp|luka (soweli)}}
| 60
|-
! {{tp|noka (soweli)}}
| 16
|-
! {{tp|luka en noka (soweli)}}
| 4
|-
! Other option
| 0
|-
! Depends on context
| 43
|} <!-- I believe that there were some flaws in the phrasing and the options for this poll, but it's better than nothing. -->
</ref>
</references>