the rod is rotating to the right.

So in such gismu we need a place for direction of rot= ation filled with "zunle/pritu". If this placed is not filled then the gism= u would mean "rotating in general".

On Saturday, August 11, 2= 012 12:45:34 PM UTC+4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

May be I missed something in this conversation but (lindar will co= nfirm) 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.
Th= e scrutiny shows that {carna} has everything that we need.
Here is my solution.
1. Take a clock from the wall.<= /div>
2. Put it on the floor.
3. Sit on top of the clock. Jus= t in the middle of the clock! Be careful not to break something in the mech= anism.
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 movi= ng 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 wo= rd "front" I mean that part that has digits painted on it and hands moving.=
What is "front"? What is "face"?
These are two-dimensi= onal but one-side objects (like M=F6bius band or something).
You = can't look at my face from the other side. You will simply see the b= ack of my head.

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

May be the definition of = {carna} is really not an ideal one but I no longer support any new gismu fo= r "clockwise".
It's better to clarify {carna} definition, may be = change it to
x1 turns or rotates around from the viewpoin= t (reference frame) of x2 in direction x3

= This 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.
Eve= n if we are blind we have such body orientation (including mouth, nose, lim= bs etc) so that we are still oriented forward.
What if we had = eyes on our backs: {pritu} has also "frame of reference" place. Th= erefore, two ref-frames annihilate (sumti/sumti=3D1) and we are culturally = neutral again.

You might argue: what if spiders th= at have eyes on their limbs learnt Lojban? Would that be culturaly neutral?=
We must think about them too!
The answer is pretty cle= ar.
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 wi= thout "lines-of-sensory-input". All sensory organs work that way. Therefore= , I state that it's culturally neutral.

I have= n't read all the conversation. So may be somebody has already understood th= is.
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, Jo= nathan 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 referenc= e
> 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 t= hem
> 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 specify which= direction the objects are rotating. The "direction" you're talking about i= s the reference point.

Okay, wait, I missed the "...corresponds to a direction of rotati= on...." 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 mentio= ned 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".

--
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 )