Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:53:10 -0800
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;  s=s1024; d=rogers.com;  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;  b=KVPVzZDzfL0q2z1M7NjPrJB+Sir1nwZjhlapcMYU2IwnAdga7++RgMu8ry9Dr7ZR6WK1wnSr93W6NrT2XM0PAR60Q0418rQo54sLCY1B/SSFI8XJppzFTXqkr1oaTepM/vOcEK+82XuokUse1sxfs8871+YrJ6GzQUPKf5EPJBc=;
Message-ID: <418253.11799.qm@web88004.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <554271.77238.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4de8c3930911021528m6da0ba6ctdb246599258d207c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:51:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Cosmology
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <4de8c3930911021528m6da0ba6ctdb246599258d207c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1279
Lines: 30


> > 2) {caljoitei}:
> > c1=t1 is space-time occupied by c2
> 
> According to Einstein, space and time are two aspects of a unified
> whole. Spacetime is not really a mixture of two originally individual
> things per se (and such a mixture is i think what "joi" is for
> usually); it's a matrix of two aspects of one thing. That is,
> spacetime is more like "canlu je temci" than "canlu joi temci". But i
> could be wrong. It might be just hairsplitting. And i like the sound
> of "caljoitei" more than "caljvetei" or "caljevytei".
> 
I'm probably on shaky ground here, and we could do with some inputs 
from physicists.  My understanding is that space and time are just 
4 dimensions in a universe that has more than 4 dimensions. In theory, 
no one dimension has 'primacy' over any other.  However, we humans 
see the 3 dimensions (space) but feel the 4th - so in that sense they are different.

The question is: what role should these musings have in the formulation of the 
lujvo?  Frankly, I don't know.  But in anycase, the sound of the lujvo is not relevant.
A lujvo that sounds OK in English, may sound stunningly melodic in Quechua, and 
just terrible in Swahili.  I think we need to continue to resist the temptation to 
make lojban Anglo- or Euro-centric.

totus