Re: A question about space tenses

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>lojbab:
>> The etymology is from farna indeed, with the presumed meaning "in the
>> direction of" which seems locative, rather than "facing" which is orientativ
>
>According to the gismu list, farna means "x1 is the direction of x2
>from origin x3". I really don't want to turn this into another
>what-does-the-English-word-means, but my dictionary has for "direction"
>(besides some other irrelevant stuff):
>
>direction: the line or course on which something is moving or is aimed
>           to move or along which something is pointing or facing.
>
>I understood "farna" to mean that x2 is moving/aimed/pointing/facing
>in the direction that goes from x3 to x1. Is my understanding wrong?

Obviously, we need to reword.  The directional line is from x3 to x2 and x1 is
somewhere on that vector (which extnds past x2 making your formulation
effectively the same as mine, but reversing the roles of directional standard
and thing being measured).

Suggested rewordings are welcome.

If x1 is a point, it is located (approximately) on that vector.
If x1 is itself a directional indication, then it is parallel with that
vecotr.

>To obtain the location meaning with my understanding of farna I would
>use "selfarzva": x1 is located towards x2 from x3.

whereas to me, that is farna itself:
"i located towards" = "is in the direction of"
with the qualification implied above that farna can be used for both location
and vectors (maybe there SHOULD be a distinction between these two
meanings of farna, but thus far there is not).

>> I don;lt think we ever considered an orientative tense.  We did something
>> with BAI, I think to allow stating an orientation, but I cannot remember wha
>> it was.
>
>The closest thing I can find is seka'a and teka'a for destination and
>origin, but this is not really the same thing at all.

I think we used ma'i, but also used a lujvo like farnyjarco. I think also
that crane and mlana can be used to indicate orientation.

>Yes, I agree that is a valid argument, but then how do we express direction?
>Are we limited to roundabout expressions like:
>
>        le nu ciska bau le rabybau cu se farna le zunle
>        Writing in Arabic is towards the left.

le se ciska poi rabybau cu porsi leka leselyli'e cu zunle le lidne
The written which is Arabic is sequenced with rules the follower is to the
left of the leader is more accurate if even more wordy.

I would have no problem with
le xrabo cu mo'izu'a ciska

though individual strokes probably move in a variety of directions making
this (and all statements of writing direction) incorrect unless they refer to
the lerfu sequences that result from writing.

>Well, there are examples in the refgrammar that use mo'i in the bridi
>to show motion of a sumti.


I'd have to look them over, but in many cases, movement of x1 implies
movement of the event.  I guess this may be cultural, but of you are
talking to me as you approach, I could see the event of talking as
approaching me as well.

lojbab