Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id DAA15472 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 03:35:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199509210735.DAA15472@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id CA762793 ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 1:05:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:38:40 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: direction, dimension X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 21 03:35:46 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM:LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> Jorge: > > > In general, I haven't figured out yet how to deal with places > > > that are defined as "in direction x" or "in dimension x". > > > Any suggestions? How would you say {fe [inwardly]} anyway? > > > {fe lo nerfaa (be le noa)}, or {fe lo nenri (be le noa)}? > If {ta tinsa lo nenri}, does that mean that the object is in > relationship {tinsa} with its insides? Maybe, I don't know. I'd have thought so. > As for {nerfa'a}, I'm not sure what it is. What kind of object > fills the x1 of {farna}? I think it should be a destination - the location x2 would reach if x2 were moving. > What exactly does {nenri} do here? It tells you more about that destination. > It's not the x2 of {farna}, and certainly not the x3, the > "origin" of the direction. Indeed not; it's the x1. > > For dimensions there are lujvo from {cimde}. > Well, {cimde} gives me similar difficulties. I don't really know > what to put in the x1. How do you say "this is two-dimensional"? {ti relmemselcimde}, {ti se cimde be re da}? > > You know this, so there must be some problem I'm failing to see. > It's just that I'm still not happy with my understanding of how > to talk about space properties in Lojban (including the space > tenses). I'm not saying that there is something wrong with it, > just that I still haven't figured it out. (Time is much easier, > being just one-dimensional and with a fixed direction.) You're the physicist. You do everything in 13 dimensions. So you should be able to sort it out. Or maybe that's why you can't. After all, to me, 3 dimensional space seems perfectly straight- forward. (Anything more than 3 is meaningless: Richard Kennaway spent half a fruitless hour drawing me shadows of 4 dimensional Necker cubes, & they all looked like nothing but elaborate birdcages. N.B. This is not an invitation to Doug or John or other clever people to essay a perlustration of my benighted spatial bournes.) --- And