On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
No official decision will be made (Robin won't make up his mind) until someone goes through the corpus and determine how the proposed change affects past usage. I imagine that it may be allowable to ignore uses on IRC, but it's not my call.
The official decision regards the following:
> In other words, going from:
>
> carna : x1 turns/rotates/revolves around axis x2 in direction x3.
>
> To:
> carna : x1 turns from x2 to x3
(^^In case it's not clear, the thing in the x2 and x3 places are what the x1 is "facing" at that point.)
>
> gutni : x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about
> rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3
I believe there is still some debate over whether we should insert a place between x1 and x2 for "right" and "left" rotational motion, or to have one word for each, "clockwise" having the exact same place structure as counter-clockwise, and the gismu form "ramli":
ramli : x1 is rotating clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3
(^^ I forgot to change the word when I copied the definition. :( )
I favor two words, myself. I don't see the point in having a place in a relationship that can only be filled by two values.--
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 )