No Subject

[Art Protin <protin@USL.COM>]

In response to lojbab:

> In the case of revolution around the sun, it is apparent that in a
> single revolution, the earth comes "back to its starting point".
> Scientists know this is not the case since the orbit changes slightly,
> the sun moves throught the galaxy, etc. so when it reaches its 'starting
> point', that point is really somewhere else.  So does a single
> revolution start and stop at the same point or not - depends on how you
> look at it.  Yet we can determine whether a revolution has occurred even
> if we do not agree on the starting and stopping points.

Ignoring the motion of the sun through the galaxy, infact, limiting
discussion of the earth's motion relative to sun, the earth is not
in the same place today that it was a year ago.  Even after factoring
out the precession fo our orbit, the orbit is decaying.  Do you
remember SkyLab?  Well, given enough time the earth would crash into
the sun, just as SkyLab crashed into the earth.

But lojbab misunderstands me when he says:
> I would contend, contrary to Art P., that natural human thought
> does NOT always ascribe starting and ending points to motion.
> My son is perfectly capable of throwing a ball with no thought
> or apparent realization that it will eventually hit something.

Rather I contend that "natural human thought does ascribe
starting and ending points to motion as a general concept"
but human thought about any particular instance of motion
may neglect the origin, the destination, the vehicle, the
route and/or that which actually moved.  Just because the
general concept includes a place does not mean that all such
places are significant to thought about every situation that
might be perceived as being an instance of that concept.
For example, an inability to reasonably express a destination
does not mean that "klama" is not the word to represent the
concept.

On the topic of Russian words for motion, fine.

        So what is the lojban word for coming
                                        going
                                and     traveling?

And if we are going to use more than one word and less than
three words for these concepts, please clarify the distinction.


As for Jorge's comment

> The vehicle/means place restricts the three of them unnecessarily.
> I still don't know how to talk about free motion, or even things
> like the movement of the ball that lojbab's son throws. To say
> "the ball went from Avgust's hands to the lamp", I can't use
> {klama}, because the ball was not using any means to go there.
> Same if I want to say "the sun travels from east to west across the sky".

My position was that of course you can use klama for both instances.
The ball was using a means, inertia+gavity, but you should not have
to be able to express that to use klama.  Leave the place empty.
If anyone else really wants to talk about the means or vehicle,
they can draw attention to that place and you can duck the question
with "I don't know".  Also, the seeming motion of the sun has a
means, namely the change in our perspective caused by the earth's
rotation on its axis.  Again, leave it blank and let someone else
worry about it.  If you can think of it as motion then it really
has values for all those places, its just that the values can be
so complex/contorted as best left to the listener as an exercise
(or written up as a thesis).
    Use the language to talk about those thing you really want to
talk about.  The places get filled in optionally as they serve your
desire to express things.  An empty place does not say anything.
The listener is not allowed to draw inference that an empty place
means anything more than the speaker did not opt to mention it.



    thank you all,
    Arthur Protin


Arthur Protin <protin@usl.com>
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and
are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.