Message-Id: <199308150621.AA10398@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1993 02:18:35 EDT
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Positive/negative electricity
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

I think the proper way to deal with electric charge may be to do so in the
gismu.  Arbitrarily choose dikca to mean either positive or negative charge
implicitly, then let to'e dikca be the other one. the problem is interpreting
no'e dikca, which coul dmean either no charge or unspecified charge.

Or dikca could be unspecified but with a predilection for one or the other
making je'a and to'e the actual specifiers of the kind of chagre, in which
case no'e clearly means neutral.

Or we add a place to dikca to indicate the kind of charge (which probably should
be there given that thequestion has arisen, but we have to then provide a
way to fill the place.  A possible approach: ratnymidju and ratnysruri would
be good tanru modifiers for charge positive and charge negative.

I don;t think we should be getting into thephilosopy of science in deciding
how to represent scientific concepts, and your posting Nick seems to indicate
that Philosophy issues are the inherent basis for deciding how to label
charges.  Lojban has generally avoided this kind of thing; e.g. Mex does not
take sides as to which notation is 'best' , but tries to support all commonly
used notations.  Thus an appeal to analogy, which a tanru based on the
structure of ratni would be, would avoid the issue of whether positive or
negative charge is more basic.

lojbab