Re: A question about space tenses (delayed response)

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

>From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
>Subject:      Re: A question about space tenses
>> >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've made a note to myself to review this one when I get through this
phase of book publishing.  I'm having trouble following the thread and
your argument when I am reading mail so seldom, and it is clear that
there is some confusion here.


>>> 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.

That seems to be what we are debating about %^)

It seems clear to me that writing in English on a single line is an
event that DOES move from left to right, and writing in Arabic on a
single line is an event that DOES move from right to left.  What is not
clear is how to describe multiline text writing tense-ly - maybe
"habitually right-to-left" or "regularly right-to-left".  Clearly ths
way of looking at writing, BTW is an activity, where each line-of
writing is a sub-event of writing moving in a single direction, which
subevents do not necessarioly mean that the composite event also moves
in that direction.

PC?  Are you reading and following this???

>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.

If we are talking about WRITING, it is the inscription on the media.
Thus it is the cursor on the computer screen that moves, though in
writing to disk, it is the media and not the inscribor that does the
moving %^); you can of course make this clear by attaching the motion
tense to the particular sumti that does the moving.

The question however is whether the event itself moves.  If you are
speaking into your tape recorder while approaching me, the event of
recording is approaching me.

>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.

But the sumti is moving to the left in your version as well, while on
the train.  Just as he is if he is walking along towards my left writing
graffiti on the wall.  The event of writing IS moving right to left.

Now when you talk about micromovements, if you are writing and your hand
moves from right to left as you are writing, it is clear that YOU are
not moving right to left, but your hand is, and so is the activity of
writing.  The objection to this is promnarily due to the reality that
when we get to the edge fo the page, we return to the other edge of the
paper which is a motion in the other direction.  But of course no actual
writing takes place during this "carriage return" so even so the
macroevent of writing which now seems to consist of activities of
directionally moving writing, separated by microevents of non-writing in
which the directionality is not part of micro-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 if 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?

Yes, more or less.  The talking is taking place over a space interval,
and that space interval is getting smaller as the other end of the
interval approaches me.  The "center point" of the talking space
interval thus is clearly approaching me.

>Why should the movement of da determine the movement of le nu da de di
>tavla?  No, I can't agree with that.

As I have explained, de and di could also affect movement.

>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?

le berti or le bertytraji could go into either or both of x1/x2
depending on how we resolve the above issue.

Any something that is to the north can serve as a direction marker for
other things that might be pointing/located/moving in that direction.

>>   "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.

It says nothing about the direction you are facing.  If you were in
Spain, then you and Mecca are in the same direction, and it probably
doesn't matter which of {you, Mecca} is the directional standard for the
other.  I can say that the sun is in direction the constellation of
Aquarius, or I can say that the constellation Aquarius is in the
direction of the sun.  Thus I suspect reanalysis of farna will show that
the x1 and x2 places are essentially interchangeable, and it is more a
question of being clear which one is being used as the standard.

But of course you ARE close to being in the direction of Mecca, if I am
planning to fly over the South Pole to get there.  Nothing says that the
path must be a great circle.  Indeed, if one wants to get picky, the
direct line from here to Mecca is a chord through the solid earth, and
nothing below the horizon can be said to be in "the same direction" as
something visible.  But that is when logic has to give way to
pragmatics.

>> 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.

It could be either, since "North" is defined as towards some standard
reference point in the northern direction.

>> 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?)

It was intended to enable making clear some kind of oblique "facing" My
driver's side door faces west in the frame of reference of the car
facing north.  It could also clarify great-circle facings etc., but I
think the place structure was directed at multifaceted "facings"

>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.

You don't think that when one person approaches the other, the event of
talking between them also approach (each of) them, and then ask me to
agree that the "front face" of the wirting even is in the left
direction?  %^) I have REAL trouble talking about fronts and backs of
events, though I can conceive of places it might be useful.

>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.

It seems to me that YOU are the one constraining mo'i to refer to only
useless kinds of motion.  I think mo'i motion can be interpreted fairly
broadly, and since we are talking about motion of an event, we need some
pragmatic standard as to what it means for the event to move.

----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";