[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TECH: Positive/negative electricity

To Logical Language Group respond I thus:

#I think the proper way to deal with electric charge may be to do so in the
#gismu.  Arbitrarily choose dikca to mean either positive or negative charge
#implicitly, then let to'e dikca be the other one. []
#Or dikca could be unspecified but with a predilection for one or the other
#making je'a and to'e the actual specifiers of the kind of chagre, []
#Or we add a place to dikca to indicate the kind of charge (which probably
#be there given that thequestion has arisen, but we have to then provide a
#way to fill the place.  A possible approach: ratnymidju and ratnysruri would
#be good tanru modifiers for charge positive and charge negative.

The last alternative is the most sensible; I'm surprised it's not already in
place. la'ezoma'u/la'ezoni'u are still as adequate as any, and I still think
the various lujvo we've come up with have a place.

Incidentally, current is cleary dicyfle, but what then is charge? Maybe just

#I don;t think we should be getting into thephilosopy of science in deciding
#how to represent scientific concepts, and your posting Nick seems to indicate
#that Philosophy issues are the inherent basis for deciding how to label
#charges.  Lojban has generally avoided this kind of thing; e.g. Mex does not
#take sides as to which notation is 'best' , but tries to support all commonly
#used notations.  Thus an appeal to analogy, which a tanru based on the
#structure of ratni would be, would avoid the issue of whether positive or
#negative charge is more basic.

I've never done any History & Philosophy of Science, and this now seems to me
a pity, because I realise that the questions about arbitrariness that kept
coming to me as I was doing Physics are dealt with in that field. I do think
it all boils down to Philosophy, and for that reason {vedu'o} will end up
used a lot. I do agree (if I understand you) that Lojban should support any
epistemology; for that reason, we should be able to talk about electricity
in Franklin's terms, as well as our contemporary terms.

I take it you'd prefer I refer to electrons in an atomic context, rather than
as quanta of electricity? Perhaps that's the way to go; I'll think on it.

 A freshman once observed to me:         Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz.
 On the edge of the Rubicon,             nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo)
 men don't go fishing.                   CogSci and CompSci & wannabe Linguist.
   - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_     Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!!