On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:03 AM, la
.lindar. <lindarthebard@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 24 August 2012 04:25:56 UTC-7,
selpa'i wrote:
I argue that
no new gismu are needed and that {carna} can be used
as is.
Oh..... kay....
I wrote a
description of how I use carna, with a picture as an
attachment.
I hope it explains my point of view (no pun intended)
well enough.
Open the picture before reading this or it will be
impossible to follow.
Yeah, even if I wasn't drunk posting I couldn't
understand that huge body of text. If using a basic word
requires collegiate or university level maths/physics then
I'll drop every fucking account right now and go learn
Volapuk just to spite all of you. If you can't phrase it
so a drunk / child can understand it, your idea is bad and
you should feel bad. zo'o
While I am in agreement with Lindar on this ^ point, it doesn't
really matter, because while you (selpa'i) may have indeed
developed a means of describing rotational motion from within
the confines of the current definition of carna, you completely
overlook the fact that carna is sometimes used to mean "x1 turns
to x3", which is a different kind of rotating, and is the REASON
we need at least one new word.
It's not a different kind of rotating. You still rotate around
some axis in some direction. In "x1 turns to x3", x3 is the
direction, and the rotation stops once x1 faces x3. It's still an
event of carna, which was my point.
It's a completely different relationship. When describing the rotation of Earth, the things which matter are the axis upon which the Earth rotates and the direction it is rotating are the important things. When describing a man turning to his friend to whisper into her ear, the axis of rotation doesn't matter, nor, really, does the direction of movement, however the ending- and to a lesser extent the beginning- points of the movement are. The SENSE, the RELATIONSHIP is comepletely different, and Lojban words aren't allowed to have multiple senses.
From my quick glance through the corpus, in fact, carna is
used to mean that as much as 2 out of 3 times. Since any change
to the language needs to have minimum (and preferably no) impact
on past usage [...].
It breaks no usage. As explained above, there is no difference
between rotating and turning that would require a seperate gismu.
What you're talking about is the current definition. You are replying to a statement about a CHANGE, rendering your comment invalid by virtue of not being pertinent.
So, selpa'i, can you translate "Gerald turned to the North and
waved." for us, using carna?
(1) la. gerald. cu carna fi lo berti gi'e xance desku rinsa
Implicitly says that Gerald stops once he faces north. This is
obvious enough for normal contexts. When in doubt, you can specify
the final orientation through other means, for instance:
(2a) la. gerald. cu carna co'u lo nu se farna lo berti
"Gerald turns until he faces north."
And possibly
(2b) la. gerald. cu carna co'u fa'a lo berti
Again, (2a) and (2b) are only necessary when (1) would cause
confusion, which is rare.
I would also like to mention that you can often just use {farna}
by itself, especially since the rotation isn't what matters, it's
the change of facing that matters. (Often, not always.)
(3) la. gerald. cu binxo lo ka se farna lo berti kei gi'e xance
desku rinsa
"Gerald becomes facing towards north and waves."
I see no problem with any of these sentences. If you need to
clearly talk about full rotations, there are also means for that,
like for example {carlai}, which xorxes proposed, but which nobody
cared to acknowledge.
I think it is clear that nothing of this breaks any usage and is,
as far as I can tell, what {carna} has always meant.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo