From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Mar 17 11:57:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 93308 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2006 19:57:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2006 19:57:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2006 19:57:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FKL4l-00048g-SR for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:57:32 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FKL3N-00047F-Fi; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:56:06 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FKL2w-000471-Fo for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:55:38 -0800 Received: from web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FKL2u-00046t-Jq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:55:38 -0800 Received: (qmail 17916 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Mar 2006 19:55:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20060317195534.17914.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:55:34 PST Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:55:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560603170814o3fffb8afg8851c4ee446d09a6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11161 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=D7dh4Y3MWFlxDDvnd2DqLyoud_VrBLi9C_Zx6PniAUsTtIBiVA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25570 Presumably, {pritu} serves both to locate an object (x1) in relation to a sided object which also has a directional orientation possible (x2) and then tries to coordinate that with an external position. Quasihistorically, it begins with a person who positions things in relation to himself and then tries to give this information to another in a useful way. That requires coordinating positions relative to himself with the external world and -- for left, right, before and behind -- this ismost easily done by saying which way he is facing: the Deccan is the country on the right *when facing the rising sun*, the Right coast is the Atlantic coast *when facing as if North (how maps are set up)* So only the orientation of x2 matters, if anything does. Note that in "and sits at the right hand of the Father," x3 is irrelevnt, since this is from the Father's point of view and is not intended to be coordinated with anything external. Extending this to things which are not so aymmetric has humans (and critters generally), raises some problems, but it would seem that talking about being on the right, for a thing which is bilaterally symmetric (and also fore-and-aft) makes no literal sense. At best it is a projection from someone (of the asymmetric sort) and then, typically, it means "if x2 had a right and left side and were facing the way I am then x1 would be on the right." Unfortunately, we also (in English at least, but I suppose most languages that have stages and photo have it) have a convention that is just the reverse: if x2 were looking at me, then x1 would be on x2's right (the photo/stage convention). That is, I suppose, option 3 below. It seems that in all but the most natural cases a counterfaction -- maye implicit, if we just give the thing to be facing toward -- is required for x3. I confess I don't underatand Option 5 or -- if I do -- can't think why anyone would hold it, give the etiology of the notion of right. -- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/17/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > What was the issue > > and how was it resolved (or can you give me a > > Subject line to get into the thread)? > > We might as well restart it here, since it > wasn't really resolved. > Some of the positions were: > > 1) x1 has to be facing x3 (Nobody really > supported this, but > the English wording of some example or other > suggested it.) > > 2) x2 has to be facing x3 (This is somewhat > suggested by the > wording of the definition.) > > 3) x2 need not necessarily have a face (it may > be a ball, > for example) but if some object like a person > were to stand > where x2 is, and face towards x3, then x1 would > be to their right. > > 4) Something else I don't remember. > > 5) x3 and only x3 determines which way is right > and which way > is left. Only the location, not the > orientation, of x2 matters. > > My choice was (5). The problem with (3) is that > it requires an externally > given up/down direction for unambiguity. Also, > it is not clear how one > would say "he sits at the right hand of the > father". What would we put > in x3 in such cases? > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > 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. > > 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.