On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:22 AM, djandus
<jandew@gmail.com> wrote:
latro`a convinced me that we'd actually need two words, because {to'e gutni} wouldn't be "rotate opposite-of-ccw', but "opposite of [rotate ccw]", which doesn't make sense.
I'm still rather against having two words, because there is a second way to negate it other than {to'e gutni} -- "negate" the direction place to point in the opposite direction.
I support that option because the main argument I hear for having two words is "well, we have the symmetry in all the spatial gismu, so shouldn't we have that here, too?" to which I say, we have that symmetry in the spatial gismu so that we don't need it here. In other words, because we were nice and thorough in the normal linear spatials, that means once we reduce rotation to require a linear spatial direction, we know we can express every option properly, with easy "negations" or swappings to the opposite.
My argument against what you're talking about has nothing to do with symmetry. I don't think something that can only have two values deserves a whole place of it's own. gismu space is big, two words won't dent it.
If you want to say it rotates clockwise viewed from the right, why not say it rotates counter-clockwise from the left? etc. In what situation do you need to express one rotary direction from the other? (Also, if you're really desparate, you could directly negate the direction place with {na'ebo})
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/fJsGpflZ7bkJ.