May be I missed something in this conversation but (lindar will confirm) I didn't want to join this discussion yesterday until I could figure out everything myself. I even said in chat "Think 100 times before suggesting any new gismu".
Still la lindar posted eir message to the list and I had to reply to it.
So let's get back to business.
The scrutiny shows that {carna} has everything that we need.
Here is my solution.
1. Take a clock from the wall.
2. Put it on the floor.
3. Sit on top of the clock. Just in the middle of the clock! Be careful not to break something in the mechanism.
4. Look at the hands (pointers) of the clock.
5. See? They are moving to the right of your point in space! Every atom of the hand of the clock is moving to the right.
6. Now stand up and put the clock to the wall.
7. Wow! The hand is no longer moving to the right. It's moving clockwise!
So {carna fi lo pritu} means "rotate clockwise".
Now what is {se carna}?
Here we have a minor problem.
When you were sitting on the clock you were the upper part of the axis, namely the part sticking out of the front of the clock.
By the word "front" I mean that part that has digits painted on it and hands moving.
What is "front"? What is "face"?
These are two-dimensional but one-side objects (like Möbius band or something).
You can't look at my face from the other side. You will simply see the back of my head.
This is what we need.
{carna lo crane lo pritu}.
May be the definition of {carna} is really not an ideal one but I no longer support any new gismu for "clockwise".
It's better to clarify {carna} definition, may be change it to
x1 turns or rotates around from the viewpoint (reference frame) of x2 in direction x3
This has also to do with the concept of the "line of sight".
Humans have it and this is what "reference frame" usually refers to.
We look forward and see the hands of the clock moving.
Even if we are blind we have such body orientation (including mouth, nose, limbs etc) so that we are still oriented forward.
What if we had eyes on our backs: {pritu} has also "frame of reference" place. Therefore, two ref-frames annihilate (sumti/sumti=1) and we are culturally neutral again.
You might argue: what if spiders that have eyes on their limbs learnt Lojban? Would that be culturaly neutral?
We must think about them too!
The answer is pretty clear.
If you have an eye on your leg please use reference frame and specify which of your multiple eyes is looking at the clock.
Still we have "line of sight" left. I think that every human or probably every animal has such feature. I can't imagine any creature without "lines-of-sensory-input". All sensory organs work that way. Therefore, I state that it's culturally neutral.
I haven't read all the conversation. So may be somebody has already understood this.
Thanks for your attention anyway.
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:29:28 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Jones
<eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pierre Abbat
<ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Friday 10 August 2012 16:02:46 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Pierre Abbat <
ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> > > What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem
> >
> > valid.
> >
> > lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo
> > bitmu .i
> > lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce
> >
> > mu'omi'e .pier.
>
> Those examples don't work, because in each of them you give a reference
> point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That said,
> if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all of them
> would be perfect examples.)
corresponds to a direction of rotation by the convention of holding the right
hand so that its thumb is along the axis and the other fingers curl in the
direction of rotation.
Okay, wait, I missed the "...corresponds to a direction of rotation...." the first time I read it. Still, your x3's only work if you follow that convention, which requires you to /know/ it in the first place. I don't know how known it is, but I'd certainly not heard of it before you mentioned it, which leads me to believe "very well" is not the answer.
It is a neat way to shove the reference point and direction of rotation together, even though it always means "counterclockwise".
--
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 )