Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:48454)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJzE7b_XFxCj4reBBRoE2UR5og@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T2Gst-0003z9-87; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:22:27 -0700
Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10sf3714730vcb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version: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=QYTun2Fx1p+6afsnI0+ffMFKeYZ6VnMTugzn7eOeF10=;
        b=i79lqKh5bZTHfM26LlJKypSD30VSdzRjXyXgbg04i+AqCTmxO9Y820cmiIZPUMl4Fc
         Cmjqz6a0D70jZ1OFbM1eEP22UubMZJ0SqZjVk8a4xiJ/gFhNV7O89pOvSOVMKUoPYUKn
         h7jNbdwcvq6GIaL4Tj9em6hKyvrP5pFCk+1KE=
Received: by 10.236.186.34 with SMTP id v22mr1237514yhm.9.1345188131977;
        Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.113.178 with SMTP id a38ls7944792yhh.9.gmail; Fri, 17 Aug
 2012 00:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.154.194 with SMTP id h42mr1260757yhk.8.1345188131514;
        Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: djandus <jandew@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <4a889c02-7a43-4494-960a-cd55e8086657@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMKwHj2ANRZa7dLicddPqdS33PfhkDaaT2qZKJWp2SUdaCBFnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMKwHj2dLrm90trBY1uTDxL60pzU8Y4TBs_+QKM1_2PjAeV8tA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMKwHj0=2Lcj-L=w5o-RgBOdR3XnwfCvC28GhzCtRbTJQXJE_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <8ccd89cb-defa-4d40-a77f-e0029180fc5f@googlegroups.com>
 <26a88634-94ee-4912-a307-0e200d75e81e@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj2POBk_VZQJ4BjkoAVmMMw-6sPXs7fgQGKxUz6jBFojhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d898abb-f2c8-4c66-aaf3-fbc0af353d78@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj100hz+iBTfEkQWUL7LqRiorn=BeKFMsQ4kOWrznC-s=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMKwHj1YrZmZ1Meb5_f0QgKctzqdGAwUxw9RUV8YAjm5U9Lg7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <958b4c89-a5cf-4525-adcd-d295ecc9f9e4@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj1xbF08-E-R9fBPd-vN6_heuN_uSDS4BN5NF47UZXHdFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120814204807.GE22895@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
 <CAMKwHj2ANRZa7dLicddPqdS33PfhkDaaT2qZKJWp2SUdaCBFnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Direction of Rotation
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: jandew@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 jandew@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jandew@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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2531_16524242.1345188129814"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_2531_16524242.1345188129814
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


>
> latro`a convinced me that we'd actually need two words, because {to'e 
> gutni} wouldn't be "rotate opposite-of-ccw', but "opposite of [rotate 
> ccw]", which doesn't make sense.
>
I'm still rather against having two words, because there is a second way to 
negate it other than {to'e gutni} -- "negate" the direction place to point 
in the opposite direction.

I support that option because the main argument I hear for having two words 
is "well, we have the symmetry in all the spatial gismu, so shouldn't we 
have that here, too?" to which I say, we have that symmetry in the spatial 
gismu *so that we don't need it here.* In other words, because we were nice 
and thorough in the normal linear spatials, that means once we reduce 
rotation to require a linear spatial direction, we know we can express 
every option properly, with easy "negations" or swappings to the opposite.

If you want to say it rotates clockwise viewed from the right, why not say 
it rotates counter-clockwise from the left? etc. In what situation do you *
need* to express one rotary direction from the other? (Also, if you're 
really desparate, you could directly negate the direction place with 
{na'ebo})

mu'o mi'e djos

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/fJsGpflZ7bkJ.
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.


------=_Part_2531_16524242.1345188129814
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di=
v>latro`a convinced me that we'd actually need two words, because {to'e gut=
ni} wouldn't be "rotate opposite-of-ccw', but "opposite of [rotate ccw]", w=
hich doesn't make sense.<br></div></div></blockquote><div>I'm still rather =
against having two words, because there is a second way to negate it other =
than {to'e gutni} -- "negate" the direction place to point in the opposite =
direction.</div><div><br></div><div>I support that option because the main =
argument I hear for having two words is "well, we have the symmetry in all =
the spatial gismu, so shouldn't we have that here, too?" to which I say, we=
 have that symmetry in the spatial gismu <i>so that we don't need it here.<=
/i>&nbsp;In other words, because we were nice and thorough in the normal li=
near spatials, that means once we reduce rotation to require a linear spati=
al direction, we know we can express every option properly, with easy "nega=
tions" or swappings to the opposite.</div><div><br></div><div>If you want t=
o say it rotates clockwise viewed from the right, why not say it rotates co=
unter-clockwise from the left? etc. In what situation do you <i>need</i>&nb=
sp;to express one rotary direction from the other? (Also, if you're really =
desparate, you could directly negate the direction place with {na'ebo})</di=
v><div><br></div><div>mu'o mi'e djos</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/fJsGpflZ7bkJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/fJ=
sGpflZ7bkJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



------=_Part_2531_16524242.1345188129814--