On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Gleki = Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
So please have a look at my suggestion =A0once again.

aionys was right,= it's not our old {carna}. It's something new.

Robin aske= d "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 th= e axis perpendicular to the axis.

Then we have line-of-sight abov= e the plane spreading to the plane.

In the image attached we can = see that according to what the eye (marked with "line of sight") = sees

the rod is rotating to the right.

So in such = gismu we need a place for direction of rotation filled with "zunle/pri= tu". If this placed is not filled then the gismu would mean "rota= ting in general".

Incorrect. Under no circumstances do we need a place = for direction of rotation if we define one of the two only possible dire= ctions as the keyword.

For example, if we make the definition be= "x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about ro= tational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3", than the gismu (I'm goin= g 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 rotati= on is occurring)
na'e gutni : not counter-clockwise (either clockwis= e 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 directio= n, which can be changed to the other with to'e and for reasons of histo= rical inertia should be counter-clockwise, a place to identify the 'fac= e' 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.
=A0

On Saturday, August = 11, 2012 12:45:34 PM UTC+4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
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 suggest= ing 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 tha= t {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 carefu= l 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=A0point in space! Every a= tom 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&quo= t;.

Now what is {se carna}?

Here we have a minor problem.
When you were sitting on the clo= ck 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= M=F6bius band or something).

You can't look at my face from the other side. You will sim= ply see the back of my head.

This is what we need.=
{carna lo crane lo pritu}.

May be the d= efinition 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 =A0change it to= =A0
x1 turns or rotates around from the viewpoint (reference frame) o= f x2 in direction x3

This has also to d= o with the concept of the "line of sight".

Humans have it and this is what "reference frame" usually re= fers to.
We look forward and see the hands of the clock moving.
Even if we are blind we have such body orientation (including mout= h, nose, limbs etc) so that we are still oriented forward.

What if we had eyes on our backs:=A0{pritu} has also "fram= e of reference" place. Therefore, two ref-frames annihilate (sumti/sum= ti=3D1) and we are culturally neutral again.

You m= ight argue: what if spiders that have eyes on their limbs learnt Lojban? Wo= uld 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 speci= fy which of your multiple eyes is looking at the clock.

Still we have "line of sight" left. I think that every hu= man or probably every animal has such feature. I can't imagine any crea= ture without "lines-of-sensory-input". All sensory organs work th= at way. Therefore, I state that it's culturally neutral.

I haven't read all the conversation. So may be some= body has already understood this.
Thanks for your attention anywa= y.

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:29:28 AM UTC+4, aionys wro= te:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Jones = <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pierre Abb= at <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Friday 10 August 2012 16:02:46 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> 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 wou= ld 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 refe= rence
> point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That s= aid,
> if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all = of them
> would be perfect examples.)

The direction is from the clock, along its axis, into the wall, which=
corresponds to a direction of rotation by the convention of holding the rig= ht
hand so that its thumb is along the axis and the other fingers curl in the<= br> direction of rotation.

No, that's not what I mean. You don't speci= fy which direction the objects are rotating. The "direction" you&= #39;re talking about is the reference point.

Okay, wait, I missed the "...corresponds to a direction of r= otation...." 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 o= f it before you mentioned it, which leads me to believe "very well&quo= t; 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".

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

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