From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Dec 05 11:12:07 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EjLki-000301-T0
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:11:56 -0800
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EjLki-0002zu-J6
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:11:56 -0800
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:11:56 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: "point"?
Message-ID: <20051205191156.GB9161@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20051201201215.GT18294@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20051203071906.GO9262@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560512030754r3955ea9fqacb4fdf7e3cdc821@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <925d17560512030754r3955ea9fqacb4fdf7e3cdc821@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 10829
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 12:54:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/3/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've got in!  sinxa!
> 
> {farsni} has in fact been used for "object x1 points in the
> direction of object x2", so that would work for {le va grana cu
> farsni le vu tricu}

Doesn't help for the general concept I'm trying to get across, as I
thought I had made clear.

> So {farsni} for objects indicating, and {farja'o} for agents
> indicating, the spatial direction of something.

*nod*  Useful.  Thanks.

> > >     Page 27 references the book Accelerando
> > >
> > >     lojban.org links to Nick's Lojban pages
> 
> These wouldn't involve {farna}, at least not literally. The first
> one is covered by {sitna}. The second one is more like an access
> to, so it could be {vorme}. {vorme} is not unidirectional, but
> then you can always click on the "back" button,

*UGH*.  Even for you[1] that's a horrible metaphor.  The "back"
button does *NOT* make a link bi-directional in any respect
whatsoever.  If X links to Y, unless someone else who gets to Y by
some other means can *see* that X links to Y, the link is strongly
unidirectional.  Furthermore, the x4 is spurious at best.

-Robin

[1]: xorxes and I have a long-standing fight about computer-related
terminology.  I think his creations show a complete lack of
understanding of how computers actually function, and he thinks I
have a pathological fear of metaphor.  The truth is probably
somewhere in the middle.

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.