--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ESjKoxxj57UJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
x1 rotates clockwise in-frame-of-reference x2
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ZNH4_42NsJQJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
Do we *really* have to use a clock metaphor?
Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?
Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?
That's fairly inaccurate. Rotation has nothing to with gravity, and falling /requires/ it. It is perfectly possible for something to move/rotate in a clockwise direction without falling. Every celestial body that isn't rotating counter-clockwise does it. (technically: the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is perpetually falling toward Sol.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/OH5SO2aZ8d0J.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
Okay, but as I've asserted many times over and over and over and over and over and over again, I'm the stupidest genius at Lojban central. I've already established this fact, so we don't need to reestablish it. I didn't actually make a claim, I just said some bullshit because I wanted to convey a meaning. I understand that rotation has nothing to do with gravity, so while I am the stupidest one here, you *really* don't need to explain third-grade physics to me. I didn't actually think that was a good way to say "clockwise".
I was unaware of {carna}. What goes in the x3?
Direction. x2 is the axis of rotation.
I was unaware of {carna}. What goes in the x3?
Direction. x2 is the axis of rotation.Are you trolling me or am I just not speaking that clearly?
What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem valid.
I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?
I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?
I apologise for being crabby. I felt insulted that you had assumed I was asking for the definition of the place; I can look that up myself. I felt it was fairly obvious from context what was my intent, but I can see where there could be confusion. I also felt insulted that you felt the need to explain to me that rotation isn't dependent on gravity. I know this. I passed high school. I'm sure it was entirely unintentional, but you've come off as rather condescending.I've reacted rather poorly, however, and assumed that you had some sort of malevolent intent. I don't imagine this is the case, and I apologise for reacting as though it was.
I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?From a completely unbiased standpoint, without any cultural knowledge, does that unambiguously indicate direction of rotation?
Which way is "left"? Are we measuring from the bottom or the top?
Which way is the "first" rotation? Is that culturally neutral?
I apologise for being crabby. I felt insulted that you had assumed I was asking for the definition of the place; I can look that up myself. I felt it was fairly obvious from context what was my intent, but I can see where there could be confusion. I also felt insulted that you felt the need to explain to me that rotation isn't dependent on gravity. I know this. I passed high school. I'm sure it was entirely unintentional, but you've come off as rather condescending.
I've reacted rather poorly, however, and assumed that you had some sort of malevolent intent. I don't imagine this is the case, and I apologise for reacting as though it was.
[...]Conlusion: lindar is not stupid.
Currently I think that this concept is not related to motion at all. It should be called chirality.If {farna} is just a vector and {klama} is a movement according to such vector then"chirality" is a twisted vector and {carna} is a movement according to such vector.
chirality (uncountable)
Sorry for such term as "twisted vector" but I'm not an expert in such things.If there are mathematicians or topologists around please enlighten us.
Regarding all of this thing with carna:
I find myself rather disappointed in the current definition of the word. As it stands, the x3 place has to be overloaded in order for the direction to be specified without ambiguity, because it has to establish not only what direction the rotation is in, but also the frame of reference as well. Granted, in some cases this frame can be zo'e-elided, such as with clocks or tops, but not all things are obvious. For instance, when a car is moving forward, when looking at the car from the left side, the wheels are rotating counter-clockwise, whereas if looking at the car from the right side, they are moving clockwise, and if you consider the point of reference the center of the axles, the left-side tires are moving counter and the right-side moving clock.
Particularly because their are /only/ two possible directions of rotation, it seems to me that a much better definition would have been:
x1 is rotating clockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.
This would have the benefit of making it horrendously easy to say:
carna: rotating clockwise
to'a carna: rotating counter-clockwise
na carna: not rotating
I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?
We could also use "positive" and "negative" ({carna li ma'u}/{carna li ni'u}? "li" doesn't seem appropriate in this case...), with "positive" being counter-clockwise, in line with polar coordinate notation, but that still doesn't address the reference frame problem.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
Positive being counterclockwise as per mathematical convention.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?
That's fairly inaccurate. Rotation has nothing to with gravity, and falling /requires/ it. It is perfectly possible for something to move/rotate in a clockwise direction without falling. Every celestial body that isn't rotating counter-clockwise does it. (technically: the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is perpetually falling toward Sol.)
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:That's fairly inaccurate. Rotation has nothing to with gravity, and falling /requires/ it. It is perfectly possible for something to move/rotate in a clockwise direction without falling. Every celestial body that isn't rotating counter-clockwise does it. (technically: the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is perpetually falling toward Sol.)On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?What is the standard for determining north/right-left?Whether Earth (and other bodies in space) rotate and revolve clockwise or counterclockwise is purely arbitrary, 50/50. But once any one thing is determined to be north, everything else follows.How about using chirality as the basis of a definition?
On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo bitmu .i
> What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem valid.
lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce
mu'omi'e .pier.
Just to be more precise, I don't really catch what you term a "reference frame".
Dnia piątek, 10 sierpnia 2012 o 22:04:08 Jonathan Jones napisał(a):
> Cartesian plane<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Orientation_and_.22handedness.22>by
> I literally justs copied this from the Wikipedia page:
>
> "In a mathematical sense, a circle defined parametrically in a positive
> the equations
> *x* = cos *t* and *y* = sin *t* is traced counterclockwise as *t* increases
> in value."That's pure *western* math. Your arbitrary choice of one mathematics is not culturally neutral ;)
>
> That's pure math right there.
I really need anything, so if you have an answer that's less incorrect, please let me know.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:Escape Landsome, you're not contributing to the conversation by misunderstanding basic concepts and then arguing against opinions nobody has. Nobody was claiming to know of a culturally-neutral word for "clockwise", therefore nobody is inclined to prove it. The entire topic of this conversation is precisely about whether or not we *can* come up with such a thing. Also, how do you not understand what a reference frame is? If the north end of the earth is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning anticlockwise, but if the south end is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning clockwise. How is that not obvious and intrinsic to the concept to you?Back to the point, can we come up with the *least* wrong answer *right now* so I have something to use at all?Is anybody going to misunderstand {carna fi lo pritu} if we apply Powell's Principle?
What's Powell's Principle?
I really need anything, so if you have an answer that's less incorrect, please let me know.
The only thing I can think of that may be less incorrect is {carna fi li [ma'u/ni'u]}, but it requires an understanding of polar notation to get.
What's Powell's Principle?
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:Escape Landsome, you're not contributing to the conversation by misunderstanding basic concepts and then arguing against opinions nobody has. Nobody was claiming to know of a culturally-neutral word for "clockwise", therefore nobody is inclined to prove it. The entire topic of this conversation is precisely about whether or not we *can* come up with such a thing. Also, how do you not understand what a reference frame is? If the north end of the earth is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning anticlockwise, but if the south end is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning clockwise. How is that not obvious and intrinsic to the concept to you?Back to the point, can we come up with the *least* wrong answer *right now* so I have something to use at all?Is anybody going to misunderstand {carna fi lo pritu} if we apply Powell's Principle?
What's Powell's Principle?
I really need anything, so if you have an answer that's less incorrect, please let me know.
The only thing I can think of that may be less incorrect is {carna fi li [ma'u/ni'u]}, but it requires an understanding of polar notation to get.
Oh yes, and no matter what you use, you'll still have to add {...ma'i* lodu'u X cu galraipau} if it isn't obvious.
What's Powell's Principle?"Robin Powell's Principle of Non-gluteality"Don't be an ass.
Essentially the same as Wheaton's Law, but specifically regarding the interpretation of an expression using available context.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:48 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:What's Powell's Principle?"Robin Powell's Principle of Non-gluteality"Don't be an ass.
How am I being an ass? I've honestly never heard of it before now.
Essentially the same as Wheaton's Law, but specifically regarding the interpretation of an expression using available context.
--mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
No, that's not what I mean. You don't specify which direction the objects are rotating. The "direction" you're talking about is the reference point.On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:On Friday 10 August 2012 16:02:46 Jonathan Jones wrote:The direction is from the clock, along its axis, into the wall, which
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> > > What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem
> >
> > valid.
> >
> > lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo
> > bitmu .i
> > lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce
> >
> > mu'omi'e .pier.
>
> Those examples don't work, because in each of them you give a reference
> point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That said,
> if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all of them
> would be perfect examples.)
corresponds to a direction of rotation by the convention of holding the right
hand so that its thumb is along the axis and the other fingers curl in the
direction of rotation.
May be I missed something in this conversation but (lindar will confirm) I didn't want to join this discussion yesterday until I could figure out everything myself. I even said in chat "Think 100 times before suggesting any new gismu".Still la lindar posted eir message to the list and I had to reply to it.So let's get back to business.The scrutiny shows that {carna} has everything that we need.Here is my solution.1. Take a clock from the wall.2. Put it on the floor.3. Sit on top of the clock. Just in the middle of the clock! Be careful not to break something in the mechanism.4. Look at the hands (pointers) of the clock.5. See? They are moving to the right of your point in space! Every atom of the hand of the clock is moving to the right.6. Now stand up and put the clock to the wall.7. Wow! The hand is no longer moving to the right. It's moving clockwise!So {carna fi lo pritu} means "rotate clockwise".Now what is {se carna}?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/OkBQuMuKLuoJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
aionys, your tone in this message is no better,
and you seem to be
ignoring the fact that there are arbitrary conventions in place for
determining that direction, even in the "purely mathematical"
definition you used.
I don't have time to go over every post in this thread, especially seeing as it is rather full of people getting offended.Has anyone brought up the right-hand rule? (for rotations)That is, for the wheels on a car, I could say:{lo karce xislu cu carna zo'e lo zunle be lo karce}because if you were to stick your right thumb to the car's left, your fingers would curl around in the direction of rotation. This is consistent with the overall standard of the right-hand rule, which comes up on this topic via the cross product definition of angular motion. That is, if I were to be asked the "direction" of the angular motion, momentum, or similar, it would be to the car's left. This is arbitrary, but completely standardized in physics.
Similarly, I would say that a top would be {carna zo'e lo gapru} if it were spinning counter-clockwise when viewed from above. If I were to instruct one to remove a screw, I could say {ko cargau lo klupe ku zo'e lo bartu}, because the direction a screw moves and the direction it needs to rotate correspond by the same standard right-hand rule. If I were to use the carna2 spot, the axis would probably be defined with a direction as "positive," after which I could then use {li ni'u}/{li ma'u} in carna3. (This would be the establisment of a coordinate system.) If the axis was given descriptively without a direction, then my other examples illustrate how I would deal with that.Is there anything terribly wrong with these examples?mu'o mi'e djos
So Robin entered right-hand rule to Gismu issues page.Can you provide some examples of it's usage with all places filled in? Is it culturally-neutral (both left and right direction can be equally used)?btw, lindar started this topic because he NEEDED a way of expressing the concept of "clockwise".doi loi jbobadna, where are the examples after all?
On Sunday, August 12, 2012 12:34:00 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:11 AM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:I don't have time to go over every post in this thread, especially seeing as it is rather full of people getting offended.Has anyone brought up the right-hand rule? (for rotations)That is, for the wheels on a car, I could say:{lo karce xislu cu carna zo'e lo zunle be lo karce}because if you were to stick your right thumb to the car's left, your fingers would curl around in the direction of rotation. This is consistent with the overall standard of the right-hand rule, which comes up on this topic via the cross product definition of angular motion. That is, if I were to be asked the "direction" of the angular motion, momentum, or similar, it would be to the car's left. This is arbitrary, but completely standardized in physics.
I believe Pierre did, yes.
Similarly, I would say that a top would be {carna zo'e lo gapru} if it were spinning counter-clockwise when viewed from above. If I were to instruct one to remove a screw, I could say {ko cargau lo klupe ku zo'e lo bartu}, because the direction a screw moves and the direction it needs to rotate correspond by the same standard right-hand rule. If I were to use the carna2 spot, the axis would probably be defined with a direction as "positive," after which I could then use {li ni'u}/{li ma'u} in carna3. (This would be the establisment of a coordinate system.) If the axis was given descriptively without a direction, then my other examples illustrate how I would deal with that.Is there anything terribly wrong with these examples?mu'o mi'e djos
I don't see anything.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/zs8HlDKVgFwJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> But you still need to specify which thumb.
The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.
> Is there no escape from this?
No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.
On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:> But you still need to specify which thumb.
The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.
> Is there no escape from this?
No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.
If we have {zunle/pritu} we need two words for rotation too: left-hand and right-hand rule.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/z54-hPRQNhMJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:> But you still need to specify which thumb.
The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.
> Is there no escape from this?
No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.
Yes it is. It's lack of neutrality is not cultural.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:On 08/12/2012 11:15 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:Unless, perhaps, someone can cite different existing cultures doing it
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:
>>>
>>>> But you still need to specify which thumb.
>>>
>>> The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.
>>>
>>>> Is there no escape from this?
>>>
>>> No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.
>>
>
> Yes it is. It's lack of neutrality is not cultural.
differently. But I don't think that's the case.
You don't seem to understand what culturally neutral means. If there is no culture that does a certain thing differently than the other cultures, than us also doing it that way is /not/ culturally biased. In order for it to be biased, it has to be something one (subset) of the various cultures do in this way.
Typical nuts, screws, bolts, and bottle caps are tightened (moved away from the observer) clockwise and loosened (moved towards the observer) counterclockwise, in accordance with the right-hand rule.
<rlpowell> my instinct is to object, but I don't think I have any actual good reasons, so: sure, that looks fine. :)<rlpowell> (that is: using "screw" to mean "rotation" seems odd to me, but I understand your arguments)
So Robin made his decision about the place structure.
See Gismu issues changelog in lojban.org wiki.
x1 is spinning about axis x2 such that if your right hand's fingers are curling in the direction of rotation, your thumb would be pointing in direction x3 (along the x2 axis).
x1 is spinning counter-clockwise about axis x2 seen from side/perspective x3.
More pertinent to me is the actual place structure, definition, of the word. My opinion is that we definitely need a place for identification of the 'top', and there may be occasions where there is a need to specify the rotational axis, but I expect most often not, one of the two directions should be the keyword itself- I don't care which one- with the other being {to'e bolto}, and I don't think the word needs anything else.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/BgQpNcW97VUJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]Also, if we're actually making a new word, I'd like to mention something. I generally find the axis usage clunky and rarely necessary, as it is often easier to give a more specific direction than an axis, in English or Lojban alike. Thus, the axis spot is mainly useful wrapped in {lo SE broda ku}. Shouldn't the x3 spot be the axis, then?
x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for
> "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate.
Could someone explain why the same word can't be used for both?
Is that part of the proposed difference?
"zulcarna" and "pritycarna" have been used before for laevorotation
and dextrorotation. Why are they inadequate?
More often, it's used in the sense "x1 turns towards x3", as in {mi carna fi lo mi zdani vorme}.
Attention please!I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.It's global and universal for the whole planet.
As for "turn to the left/right" I didn't do any work.As yesterday Robin said that "rotate in general" without specifying clockwise or counterclockwise was also a concept then we needed.So for now I'm not proposing any new gismu.{bolto,nanju,berju} are obsolete.Let's get back to discussing places once again.May be we can revise my suggestion of {carna fi lo pritu/zunle} with modified x2 once again?
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:19:24 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for
> "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate.
Could someone explain why the same word can't be used for both? The
main difference seems to be that "turn" usually doesn't require a full
revolution, while "rotate" usually requires many revolutions. but
can't that be distinguished by some other means? We probably need a
word for "revolution" ("carlai"?) then we can specify the fraction or
number of revolutions involved with a spatial tense. Also "turn" is
often volitional, while "rotate" isn't. Is that part of the proposed
difference?
"zulcarna" and "pritycarna" have been used before for laevorotation
and dextrorotation. Why are they inadequate?
I found a couple of discussions about it from prehistoric times (1995 and 2000):
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9509/msg00116.html
http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/4728
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/lBhgTBX7mjwJ.
I'd also toss about the idea of using {barcarna} fa'u {nercarna} for "revolve" fa'u "rotate".
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:Attention please!I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.It's global and universal for the whole planet.How is this metaphor adequate? The sun always rises in the east, but how do you distinguish north from south?
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:29:33 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:Attention please!I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.It's global and universal for the whole planet.How is this metaphor adequate? The sun always rises in the east, but how do you distinguish north from south?In northern hemisphere the Sun goes east-south-west.In southern hemisphere the Sun goes west-north-east.We have gismu for north and south, by the way.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/K9uJ4_mkkRcJ.
In northern hemisphere the Sun goes east-south-west.In southern hemisphere the Sun goes west-north-east.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:29:33 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:Attention please!I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.It's global and universal for the whole planet.How is this metaphor adequate? The sun always rises in the east, but how do you distinguish north from south?In northern hemisphere the Sun goes east-south-west.In southern hemisphere the Sun goes west-north-east.We have gismu for north and south, by the way.In both hemispheres the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Only the north/south is different.
You totally ignored the question. How do you distinguish north from south? I know which is which by convention, but that doesn't help to distinguish them in a mirror.
May be I missed something in this conversation but (lindar will confirm) I didn't want to join this discussion yesterday until I could figure out everything myself. I even said in chat "Think 100 times before suggesting any new gismu".Still la lindar posted eir message to the list and I had to reply to it.So let's get back to business.The scrutiny shows that {carna} has everything that we need.Here is my solution.1. Take a clock from the wall.2. Put it on the floor.3. Sit on top of the clock. Just in the middle of the clock! Be careful not to break something in the mechanism.4. Look at the hands (pointers) of the clock.5. See? They are moving to the right of your point in space! Every atom of the hand of the clock is moving to the right.6. Now stand up and put the clock to the wall.7. Wow! The hand is no longer moving to the right. It's moving clockwise!So {carna fi lo pritu} means "rotate clockwise".Now what is {se carna}?Here we have a minor problem.When you were sitting on the clock you were the upper part of the axis, namely the part sticking out of the front of the clock.By the word "front" I mean that part that has digits painted on it and hands moving.What is "front"? What is "face"?These are two-dimensional but one-side objects (like Möbius band or something).You can't look at my face from the other side. You will simply see the back of my head.This is what we need.{carna lo crane lo pritu}.May be the definition of {carna} is really not an ideal one but I no longer support any new gismu for "clockwise".It's better to clarify {carna} definition, may be change it to
x1 turns or rotates around from the viewpoint (reference frame) of x2 in direction x3This has also to do with the concept of the "line of sight".Humans have it and this is what "reference frame" usually refers to.We look forward and see the hands of the clock moving.Even if we are blind we have such body orientation (including mouth, nose, limbs etc) so that we are still oriented forward.What if we had eyes on our backs: {pritu} has also "frame of reference" place. Therefore, two ref-frames annihilate (sumti/sumti=1) and we are culturally neutral again.You might argue: what if spiders that have eyes on their limbs learnt Lojban? Would that be culturaly neutral?We must think about them too!The answer is pretty clear.If you have an eye on your leg please use reference frame and specify which of your multiple eyes is looking at the clock.Still we have "line of sight" left. I think that every human or probably every animal has such feature. I can't imagine any creature without "lines-of-sensory-input". All sensory organs work that way. Therefore, I state that it's culturally neutral.I haven't read all the conversation. So may be somebody has already understood this.Thanks for your attention anyway.
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:29:28 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:No, that's not what I mean. You don't specify which direction the objects are rotating. The "direction" you're talking about is the reference point.On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:On Friday 10 August 2012 16:02:46 Jonathan Jones wrote:The direction is from the clock, along its axis, into the wall, which
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> > > What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem
> >
> > valid.
> >
> > lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo
> > bitmu .i
> > lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce
> >
> > mu'omi'e .pier.
>
> Those examples don't work, because in each of them you give a reference
> point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That said,
> if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all of them
> would be perfect examples.)
corresponds to a direction of rotation by the convention of holding the right
hand so that its thumb is along the axis and the other fingers curl in the
direction of rotation.
Okay, wait, I missed the "...corresponds to a direction of rotation...." the first time I read it. Still, your x3's only work if you follow that convention, which requires you to /know/ it in the first place. I don't know how known it is, but I'd certainly not heard of it before you mentioned it, which leads me to believe "very well" is not the answer.
It is a neat way to shove the reference point and direction of rotation together, even though it always means "counterclockwise".
On Monday, August 13, 2012 5:19:24 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for
> "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate.
Could someone explain why the same word can't be used for both?The difference is subtle, but more apparent in Lojban place structure. For "rotate," we want a place structure focusing on a continuing rotation, so we focus on the direction of rotation and axis. For "turn," we want a place structure focusing on a short rotation, so we focus on the initial and final "angular positions" -- which way the object is facing at the beginning and end. Robin's example was saying "I turn to face you." -- The only way I can think of to say that now is something like {mi vo'a cargau mu'i lo nu do mi crane}, which I guess isn't too terrible, now that I think about it. In fact, {cargau} seems really good for "opening a door" or "unscrewing a bolt" which I believe were other discussed problem sentences.Is that part of the proposed difference?I'm pretty sure it is.
"zulcarna" and "pritycarna" have been used before for laevorotation
and dextrorotation. Why are they inadequate?That sounds like gibberish to me, but I understand the fundamental issue to be that carna3 had a pretty unknown usage since it requires an arbitrary "clockwise" or "counterclockwise" implication to be useful. Thus, any lujvo based off it are equally arbitrary, and redefining the gismu seems advantageous. I'd like to take a step back for a moment and meditate on why we're making a new word at all. There's a lot here to digest, and a lot that doesn't make sense.aionys said a while ago that changing {carna} to the "turning" definition would actually be more likely to fix previous usage:More often, it's used in the sense "x1 turns towards x3", as in {mi carna fi lo mi zdani vorme}.I looked over the corpus link he provided and couldn't find any good, clear uses of carna2/carna3 that didn't seem like someone testing usage / asking about usage. In other words, it seems to me like everyone's been in the same boat of "umm... how do I use this, exactly?"doi aionys, could you discuss the exact examples that preclude the definition of {carna} we somewhat like, that "x1 rotates counter-clockwise about axis x2 from perspective x3"? Or which specific examples support the "turning" definition? (I only found one like that, and it seemed like Robin using it, wanting it to mean that or thinking it did.)I feel that this is critical to this discussion:
- If previous usage of place structure is minimal to nonexistent, then it makes perfect sense to redefine carna as close to "x1 rotates counterclockwise from perspective x2 about axis x3" as possible, so as to not break existing lujvo. Then {cargau} could be used for "turning" in the sense Robin wants. I'd also toss about the idea of using {barcarna} fa'u {nercarna} for "revolve" fa'u "rotate".
- If previous usage of place structure actually points to a particular definition significantly, then we should take that into account accordingly.
ji'a doi aionys, I think that the idea of multiple axes is very interesting. So you know, how you are thinking about using the axis place makes no sense to me from my physics background, but I find it very interesting as it actually might make the axis place useful. Also, it seems mathematically consistent. With current place structure, but your axis usage, it seems that:{carna lo bartu} refers to revolution{carna lo nenri} refers to rotation{carna re lo bartu} refers to elliptical revolution{carna re lo nenri} refers to ... elliptical rotation? That actually kind of makes sense, in a very weird way.{carna ci da} refers to... what? I'm looking into this. Thoroughly intriguing. The extension I'm using now gives a beautiful shape, IMO. (That is, in 2-dim, given "axis" points a, b, c, and the scalar r, the set of {x for which |x-a| + |x-b| + |x-c| = r} gives something that looks like an ellipse with three foci.) I made some pictures of circles, ellipses, and 3-foci things with this extension.Also, what about the issue that axes are lines? The ellipse extension assumes parallel lines -- what would nonparallel lines indicate? (It doesn't have to indicate anything, mind you. It is mathematically interesting, however.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Rc-uk1z3afIJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
So please have a look at my suggestion once again.aionys was right, it's not our old {carna}. It's something new.Robin asked "Yes, but what about objects that don't have clear <face>. e.g. imagine a rotating rod".In this case we must define a plane in the middle of the axis perpendicular to the axis.Then we have line-of-sight above the plane spreading to the plane.In the image attached we can see that according to what the eye (marked with "line of sight") seesthe rod is rotating to the right.So in such gismu we need a place for direction of rotation filled with "zunle/pritu". If this placed is not filled then the gismu would mean "rotating in general".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/mcZMDxumuPUJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:So please have a look at my suggestion once again.aionys was right, it's not our old {carna}. It's something new.Robin asked "Yes, but what about objects that don't have clear <face>. e.g. imagine a rotating rod".In this case we must define a plane in the middle of the axis perpendicular to the axis.Then we have line-of-sight above the plane spreading to the plane.In the image attached we can see that according to what the eye (marked with "line of sight") seesthe rod is rotating to the right.So in such gismu we need a place for direction of rotation filled with "zunle/pritu". If this placed is not filled then the gismu would mean "rotating in general".
Incorrect. Under no circumstances do we need a place for direction of rotation if we define one of the two only possible directions as the keyword.
For example, if we make the definition be "x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3", than the gismu (I'm going to use "gutni") can mean all of the following:
gutni: counter-clockwise
to'e gutni / tolgutni : clockwise
no'e gutni : not rotating (neither clockwise nor counter-clockwise rotation is occurring)
na'e gutni : not counter-clockwise (either clockwise or no rotation is occurring.)
na'e tolgutni : not clockwise (either counter-clockwise or no rotation is occurring.)
All that is needed for the word is a default direction, which can be changed to the other with to'e and for reasons of historical inertia should be counter-clockwise, a place to identify the 'face' when it isn't obvious (x2 in the above), and the axis/axes about which the rotation happens if it isn't the typical axis.