Regarding all of this thing with carna:
I find myself rather disappointed in the current definition of the word. As it stands, the x3 place has to be overloaded in order for the direction to be specified without ambiguity, because it has to establish not only what direction the rotation is in, but also the frame of reference as well. Granted, in some cases this frame can be zo'e-elided, such as with clocks or tops, but not all things are obvious. For instance, when a car is moving forward, when looking at the car from the left side, the wheels are rotating counter-clockwise, whereas if looking at the car from the right side, they are moving clockwise, and if you consider the point of reference the center of the axles, the left-side tires are moving counter and the right-side moving clock.
Particularly because their are /only/ two possible directions of rotation, it seems to me that a much better definition would have been:
x1 is rotating clockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.
This would have the benefit of making it horrendously easy to say:
carna: rotating clockwise
to'a carna: rotating counter-clockwise
na carna: not rotating
na'e carna: either not rotating, or rotating counter-clockwise
na'e to'e carna:either not rotating, or rotating clockwise
Since the above are the only possible things an object can do, and since I have no idea what the "opposite of rotating" could be, assuming such is even possible, this definition makes more sense.
Unfortunately, such a change in the definition would almost definitely break past usage, so this is just one of those can't (won't) fix problems.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:40 AM, la .lindar. <lindarthebard@gmail.com> wrote:I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?From a completely unbiased standpoint, without any cultural knowledge, does that unambiguously indicate direction of rotation?
No, we'd need a frame of reference to establish which is which. Since carna doesn't have that place, it remains a small problem. We can assume, however, that by "right" we mean that the "top" of the rotating thing is moving right while simultaneously the "bottom" is moving left, if the object were looked at from a particular orientation- i.e. the frame of reference, which I'll dub the "face". For example, from the orientation of looking at a clock's "face", the 12 is the topmost number, and the 6 the bottommost, and so the imaginary circular planes the hands rotate within are moving "right".
Making the above assumption means we'd only have to establish what portion of the object is the "face".
Which way is "left"? Are we measuring from the bottom or the top?
I'd say to measure from the top. It's arbitrary which we choose, but we do have to consistently choose the same one to avoid confusion, hence the above assumptions.
Which way is the "first" rotation? Is that culturally neutral?
I'd say clockwise. Right-handed people are the vast majority in every culture, so definitely not neutral, but not, I'd say, for cultural reasons.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )