[lojban] Re: semantic primes

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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 <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/17/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> 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.