On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Jonathan Jones = <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

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

^ This one would be bet= ter as {no'e carna}, actually. With this definition, {na [to'e] car= na} and {na'e [to'e] carna} technically mean the same thing.
=A0

na'e carna: either not rotating= , or rotating counter-clockwise
na'e to'e carna:either not rotat= ing, or rotating 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 AM, 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?