Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FHRmK-0008Bk-Hn for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:30:32 -0800 Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.93.160] helo=skycaptain.mr.itd.umich.edu) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FHRmI-0008Bc-83 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:30:32 -0800 Received: FROM gravitar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (gravitar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu [141.211.2.219]) BY skycaptain.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44109063.42D57.14232 ; 9 Mar 2006 15:30:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:30:27 -0500 (EST) From: Alex Joseph Martini X-X-Sender: alexjm@gravitar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lojban-beginners Digest V5 #41 In-Reply-To: <925d17560603091205n151e936v3e3189bde0e8263d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <200603091940.OAA29975@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <925d17560603091205n151e936v3e3189bde0e8263d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 3093 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alexjm@umich.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 1245 Is the point here to decide how {pritu} aught to be defined, or how it currently is defined? This issue seems to be getting a little blurred. mu'omi'e .alex. > On 3/9/06, der Mouse wrote: >>> la .iulias. pritu la mari,as. la klaudias. >>> >>> 3) Julia is to the right of Maria from Claudia's point of view. 5) >>> If Maria (or better someone standing where she is) were to face >>> Claudia, Julia would be on her (Maria's) right. >>> >>> That leaves 3 and 5 as contenders, unfortunately, they often give >>> opposite results. >>> >>> The definition as stated suggests 5, but 3 is better, because 5 is >>> ambiguous in situations where there is no up and down defined. >> >> If up and down are undefined, so are left and right. > > Yes, yes. I meant "externally undefined". Any person has an intrinsic > up/down/front/back/left/right defined, so a person is always a > perfectly good standard to use in x3 (as long as they are not in a > strange posture, but let's say they are not). So option 3 is > unambiguous. > > But option 5 requires an external up/down to be defined so that the > hypothetical person that stands in x2 and faces x3 knows which way > their head should point to. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes >