{cnita} - below or down ?

[gleki]

{cnita}  - x1 is directly/vertically beneath/below/under/underneath/down from x2 in frame of reference x3.

is there any direction vector in this definition ?

Does {cnita} presuppose any movement from the upper part to what is located beneath ?

What is more important

{nitkla} k1 descends/goes down to k2=c1 from k3=c2 via k4 using means k5.

Is it really so ?

Why can't it mean {goes in the lower part of k2=c1...} ?

Or should I use {dizlo} in such cases ?

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

There is no movement in {cnita}. It is a static positional relation
like {gapru},
{pritu}, {zunle}, {crane}, and {trixe}.

On 4 March 2012 12:02, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> {cnita}  - x1 is directly/vertically beneath/below/under/underneath/down
> from x2 in frame of reference x3.
>
> is there any direction vector in this definition ?

I am not sure what you mean here. But one way of writing the definition is
"The vector to x1 from x2 is vertical and points downwards, in frame
of reference x3."

> Does {cnita} presuppose any movement from the upper part to what is located
> beneath ?

No, there is no implied movement in {cnita}.

> What is more important
> {nitkla} k1 descends/goes down to k2=c1 from k3=c2 via k4 using means k5.
>
> Is it really so ?

It is really just as written. {nitkla} is just {klama} with the added
information
that lo se klama cu cnita lo te klama.

> Why can't it mean {goes in the lower part of k2=c1...} ?

The lower part of cnita1 is not mentioned in {cnita}...

> Or should I use {dizlo} in such cases ?

A related construction could be {dzize'a}, probably meaning
"z1 gets lower in frame of reference d3 by amount z3".

Note that {cnita} differs from {dzimau}, "z1 is lower than z2 ...",
mostly in that in
the latter the vector to z1 from z2 need not be vertical.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.