Jorge Llambías wrote:
On 3/9/06, Alex Joseph Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote: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.I think the problem is that the current definition is unclear: "x1 is to the right/right-hand side of x2 which faces/in-frame-of-reference x3 [also: x3 is the standard of orientation for x2];" If we simply take x3 to be the frame of reference, then all is well. For example, if x3 is a person, that person's intrinsic right hand side is right. But then what does this stuff about x2 "facing" x3, or x3 being a standard of orientation for x2 has to do with anything? x2 is supposed to be a positional reference for x1, only its position should be relevant, not its orientation, if it has any.
I thought I had written something to the same point, but it doesn't appear. My suspicion corroborates solution 3, for purely pragmatic reasons.
In English, and probably in most or even all other languages, you add these position/orientation pointers too. The big difference to the abstract and general lojban description is that these places are typically only filled with first and second person pronouns.
la .iulias. pritu la mari,as. Speaker and listener face the same way. la .iulias. pritu la mari,as. miTalking to a dispersed crowd, you may explicitly restrict the frame of reference to yourself, letting everyone interpret it from their own (literally) point of view.
la .iulias. pritu la mari,as. doI guess it can be a matter of politeness to assume the place of the listener and give the position in their terms.
English has a shortcut if the second and the third place are the same, as in the Nicean creed: He is seated at the right hand of the father. How does Lojban handle this?
klaus