Received: from mail-fa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]:58281) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Szkam-0003ph-Tp; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:22 -0700 Received: by fadw1 with SMTP id w1sf548208fad.16 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=NzEPpAfU/OofcU5h1G2jxn2znAXUCVE3ta6BrRDJm5Y=; b=FKzlNy7EcxnoWPKwI61vDbxCxNGSPi/OzN6mcMaV0Xa9ODHw12cn/JqxtrUfEWWg8W xEX/SPolHkUy4TlgM0YsDWikQbA+k1yesTo+s2W0TKVH5XboMOd/D0cKZnQWnYOp7+sH QFcRNpQdL06xVHd1N8W86RjU041FAeNCLPJCQ= Received: by 10.204.133.195 with SMTP id g3mr96659bkt.15.1344587345005; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.148.136 with SMTP id p8ls3076169bkv.3.gmail; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.130.7 with SMTP id q7mr363424bks.2.1344587343996; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.130.7 with SMTP id q7mr363418bks.2.1344587343277; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k7si918419bks.2.2012.08.10.01.29.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.179; Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id o2so733332lba.24 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.46.9 with SMTP id r9mr2094375lbm.81.1344587343064; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.136.73 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References:

<201aced6-3e11-408d-b3ec-c31d042519c7@googlegroups.com> <50eeeab2-c661-4c30-8cda-2f9ddb8767de@googlegroups.com>

<4bdee803-3d24-474b-bf12-ced2d730960a@googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:29:02 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Direction of Rotation From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401236ff3ee3004c6e52292 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d0401236ff3ee3004c6e52292 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 na'e carna: either not rotating, or rotating counter-clockwise na'e to'e carna:either not rotating, or rotating clockwise Since the above are the only possible things an object can do, and since I have no idea what the "opposite of rotating" could be, assuming such is even possible, this definition makes more sense. Unfortunately, such a change in the definition would almost definitely break past usage, so this is just one of those can't (won't) fix problems. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:40 AM, la .lindar. 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}? >>> >>> >> From a completely unbiased standpoint, without any cultural knowledge, >> does that unambiguously indicate direction of rotation? >> > > No, we'd need a frame of reference to establish which is which. Since > carna doesn't have that place, it remains a small problem. We can assume, > however, that by "right" we mean that the "top" of the rotating thing is > moving right while simultaneously the "bottom" is moving left, if the > object were looked at from a particular orientation- i.e. the frame of > reference, which I'll dub the "face". For example, from the orientation of > looking at a clock's "face", the 12 is the topmost number, and the 6 the > bottommost, and so the imaginary circular planes the hands rotate within > are moving "right". > > Making the above assumption means we'd only have to establish what portion > of the object is the "face". > > >> Which way is "left"? Are we measuring from the bottom or the top? >> > > I'd say to measure from the top. It's arbitrary which we choose, but we do > have to consistently choose the same one to avoid confusion, hence the > above assumptions. > > >> Which way is the "first" rotation? Is that culturally neutral? >> > > I'd say clockwise. Right-handed people are the vast majority in every > culture, so definitely not neutral, but not, I'd say, for cultural reasons. > > > -- > 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 ) > > -- 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 post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --f46d0401236ff3ee3004c6e52292 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regarding all of this thing with carna:

I find myself rather disappo= inted 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 ambigu= ity, 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 fram= e can be zo'e-elided, such as with clocks or tops, but not all things a= re 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-si= de tires are moving counter and the right-side moving clock.

Particularly because their are /only/ two possible directions of rotati= on, 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
na'e carna: either not rotating, or rotat= ing counter-clockwise
na'e to'e carna:either not rotating, or ro= tating clockwise

Since the above are the only possible things an object can do, and sinc= e I have no idea what the "opposite of rotating" could be, assumi= ng such is even possible, this definition makes more sense.

Unfortun= ately, such a change in the definition would almost definitely break past u= sage, so this is just one of those can't (won't) fix problems.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Jo= nes <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:40 A= M, la .lindar. <lindarthebard@gmail.com> wrote:

I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions.=20 Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna=20 fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?=A0

From a completely unbiased standpoint, without= any cultural knowledge, does that unambiguously indicate direction of rota= tion?

No, we'd need a frame of reference to estab= lish which is which. Since carna doesn't have that place, it remains a = small problem. We can assume, however, that by "right" we mean th= at the "top" of the rotating thing is moving right while simultan= eously the "bottom" is moving left, if the object were looked at = from a particular orientation- i.e. the frame of reference, which I'll = dub the "face". For example, from the orientation of looking at a= clock's "face", the 12 is the topmost number, and the 6 the = bottommost, and so the imaginary circular planes the hands rotate within ar= e moving "right".

Making the above assumption means we'd only have to establish what = portion of the object is the "face".
=A0

Which way is "left"? Are we measuring from the bottom or the= top?

I'd say to measure from the top.= It's arbitrary which we choose, but we do have to consistently choose = the same one to avoid confusion, hence the above assumptions.
=A0

Which way is= the "first" rotation? Is that culturally neutral?

I'd say clockwise. Right-handed people are the vast maj= ority in every culture, so definitely not neutral, but not, I'd say, fo= r cultural reasons.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo piln= o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Lu= ke, I am your father. :D )

--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. 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 post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--f46d0401236ff3ee3004c6e52292--