Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 14 Aug 1993 08:51:16 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 14 Aug 1993 08:51:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199308141251.AA01614@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4503; Sat, 14 Aug 93 08:49:58 EDT Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@YALEVM) by YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1455; Sat, 14 Aug 1993 08:49:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 19:20:00 +1000 Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: TECH: Positive/negative electricity X-To: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Sat Aug 14 08:51:16 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET I've been having a hard think about this. It was particularly ironic that, a couple of weeks ago in Philosophical Issues in Cognitive Science, the lecturer gave the 18th century treatment of electricity as an instance of meaningless questions: in an environment where 'electrical flow' was held to be an arbitrary theoretical construct, only metaphorically related to fluid flow, the question of electrical flow directionality was meaningless --- a contention I fully support. Unfortunately for my lecturer, 19th century electricity came along... I do not want to support 19th century electricity at the expense of 18th century electricity in the gismu definition, so I don't support Bob's proposed redefinition of {dikca}. However, the concept of an electrical quantum is very much a late 19th century one, so I would support a definition of {dicka'u} to mean electron, with perhaps a {vedu'o} (epistemology) qualification. I intended dicyjdika (which *is* a short word) to be an abbreviation of nildicka'ukezyjdika (to give the correct form of the word), but if that is taken to imply a redefinition of {dikca}, then I'd much prefer dicka'ujdika (electron-reduced); dicka'udenmi/dicka'uzenba (dense/increased in electrons) for positive/negative. And to tell the truth, {ma'u zei dicka}/{ni'u zei dicka} make a lot more sense. (Jorge, you are familiar with {zei}, aren't you? It takes the two words on either side of it, which needn't be brivla, and makes of them a lujvo; so rafsi for {ma'u} and {ni'u} aren't strictly necessary). In Electrical Engineering (my alma mater), we have a lot of occasion to talk of holes (absenses of electrons), and not protons, as the quanta of positive electricity; this is a convention to make explaining semiconductor behaviour easier. The holes are quanta of current too, but an odd sort of a quantum; I'd be happy to have them called {dicfa'eka'u} (Electrical reverse quanta). ******************************************************************************* A freshman once observed to me: Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz. On the edge of the Rubicon, nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo) men don't go fishing. CogSci and CompSci & wannabe Linguist. - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_ Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!!