Re: A question about space tenses

["Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

> >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).

But our formulations are not the same! In mine, x2 is an oriented object,
in yours, there is no orientation necessary for any of x1, x2 and x3.
I would recast your definition as "x1, x2 and x3 are (roughly) aligned,
with x3 being at one end", or "x1 and x2 are located in the same
direction away from x3". I don't see that there is a need to distinguish
between "directional standard" and "thing being measured". Is there such
distinction between the x1 and x2 of zunle, for example?

Besides all that, how do you conciliate your new definition with the
one from the gismu list:

>> [x2 is towards x1 from x3 (= selfa'a for reordered places)]

That seems to place x2 between x1 and x3, if it refers to position.
(Or x2 to point towards x1 and away from x3, if to orientation.)

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that it can be either
according to context, or that it is always one of those but you are
not sure which one? I think I prefer that x1 be a place for ordinary
objects, rather than for the names of abstract directions. (How would
those names be in Lojban? Would they all be lujvo ending in -fa'a?)


> 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.

The movements involved in producing the writing are mostly irrelevant to
the event of writing. It could be done with a computer, in which case
it would be your fingers that move, or maybe using a voice recognition
program, so that it would be your tongue that moves. But all this is
irrelevant. If you say le xrabo cu mo'izu'a ciska, the only way I can
interpret it is something like the Arab sitting writing inside a subway
train (writing in any language, by the way) and you seeing her from the
platform. The event of writing would then be moving towards the left. Any
movement of the sumti or their parts should not be expressed with a mo'i
modifying the whole bridi.

> >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.
Why would you see it that way? What if you were talking to me as I
approach you, would you still see the talking approaching you as well?
Why should the movement of da determine the movement of
le nu da de di tavla? No, I can't agree with that.

Chris:
> Since x1 is glossed as "direction", I imagine it to be "north" or
> something, not "the store".  The definition sounds more natural
> substituting North for x1:
>
>  "North" is the direction of "the store" from origin "my house"
>
> (which to me implies nothing about how the store or the house
> are facing)

That would be:

        le zarci cu berti le mi zdani

What would "North" be in Lojban? le bertyfarna? Could this type
of sumti be used anywhere besides the x1 of farna?

> It's less plausible with x1 and x3 being endpoints of a line
> parallel to the way x2 is facing:
>
>   "Mecca" is the direction of "Jorge" from origin "New York City"
>
> Does this mean that you're facing the same direction that a New
> Yorker would have to face to face Mecca?  Or that you are facing
> Mecca and happen to be in NYC?

It would mean that I am facing Mecca and with my back to NYC.
I couldn't manage to do that from here, but if I was in Spain
or in Japan I might.

> If the latter, I strongly
> disapprove of x3 as a superfluous place.  The former could
> work, but I don't get it from the definition, and it doesn't
> seem intuitive to me.

The purpose of x3 would be to say "x2 points away from x3" without
having to specify towards what. But I agree that it would be
superfluous, because we could use tolfa'a for that. In any case,
it doesn't matter much, since it seems I wasn't understanding
farna as it is supposed to work.

> In short, I think the "direction" line is from x3 to x2, and
> x1 is the name of the direction.

That would agree with one of Lojbab's definitions, I think. But
I would prefer that the x1 be for ordinary things, not for names
of directions.

> An orientation gismu
> would have a place structure like "x1 is facing in direction
> x2", with no separate "origin" point (since x2 is the origin!).

Lojbab proposed crane. That gives selcra: x1 faces towards x2.
(What is the x3 of crane for, BTW?)

But I'm not sure whether this is a general solution. Can we say:

        le nu ciska bau la rabybau cu selcra le zunle
        Writing in Arabic faces left.

Iain:
> Well, the whole of selma'o FAhA is about position, and adding
> {mo'i} makes it about movement.

Adding mo'i makes it about movement + orientation. But movement
of a rather useless kind, I think. The movement of bajra, cadzu,
etc is already contemplated in the meaning of the gismu. The
movement that mo'i adds has to do with the event happening in
a moving frame of reference.

> It might have been nice if
> there had been another MOhI which made it about orientation.

Or if mo'i itself was just about orientation. It is never really
needed to add movement.

> You always try using e.g. {xo'i} for that.
> I don't think having one or two cmavo in the selma'o being
> about a different kind of spatial relationship is a good idea,
> no matter what the loosely-associated gismu might be.
Yes, as I conceded to Lojbab, that's a good argument to make
fa'a about location only.

I would still like to be clear on what exactly farna means, and
I still think mo'i entailing movement is pretty useless.

Jorge