Re: direction, dimension & Re: {soi}

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> > That's right. But the sagging can be in one or both dimensions. The
> > shape of the sag can be like half a sphere or it can be like half
> > a cylinder. (I don't see that it depends on the object's symmetry;
> > a square of corrugated cardboard would tend to sag "hemicylindrically".)
> Yes, so does a sheet of paper, but the axis of the cylinder can be
> any direction along the plane, if only one at a time. Which direction
> is the sheet of paper tinsa in?

Away from the plane defined by the paper's two principal dimensions.

> > > I'm still not sure what are the three things that are the only
> > > dimensions of three-dimensional objects that don't have well
> > > defined length, width and thickness.
> > It can happen that there are suoremei such that you can't distinguish
> > one member from another. Take the earth's orbit of the sun, or its
> > rotation around its axis - you can tell how many days and years pass,
> > but not where each one starts and ends (unless you arbitrarily choose
> > a delimiting point (midnight, Jan 1st)).
> I'm not sure what you mean here. {djedi} and {nanca} are defined as
> "x1 is x2 days/years in duration" which makes sense. The equivalent
> for the way {cimde} is defined would be "x1 is a day of x2". That was
> my original point. I would understand "x1 is x2 in dimension", where
> x2 is a number. I'm not sure about there being exactly two things
> that are dimensions of something.

I understand your point, and agree with it. I think we have two senses
of dimension: (1) pertaining to the space within which the shape of x
is defined; (2) "axis". A person has 3 "axes"; a ball has none. Both
are 3-dimensional.

> > Is it therefore wrong to say {ci da cimde lo bolci}? I don't know.
> Me neither.
> > Maybe {li ci memcimde lo bolci} would somehow be more meaningful?
> If it means "x1 is the dimension of x2", where x1 is a number, that
> is meaningful to me. But that leaves unexplained the meaning of {cimde}.

"Axis"?

> > I don't know how much an expression like {ci da} relies on
> > individuability. But at any rate, whichever locution is appropriate
> > for cimde & bolci is also appropriate for {djedi} and {nanca} (or
> > related concepts denoting a 24 hour and 365.x day period).
> What expression do you have in mind for {djedi} and {nanca}?
> If you mean something like {la 1995nanc cu djedi li 365} then there
> is no problem.

The predicate for n-dimensionality, e.g. {memcimde}, as opposed to
"axis", should work like {djedi} and {nanca}

> > I'm skeptical that it would be hard to remember the distributive reading
> > if that is what one's interpretation has been based on up to that point.
> The distributive reading is more difficult in general. I think that it
> will be hard in general to avoid reading {le re broda} as {lei re broda}
> when it matters. In many cases it doesn't make a big difference, but
> when it does, it is much easier to deal with the mass case. In English,
> to make sure that you get the distributive reading you usually need to
> use the word "each". It may be more logical that {by} be distributive,
> but it is more difficult to use correctly.

"Each" disambiguates, but sometimes context doesn't require it. If the
distrib reading is obvious, then it's easy.

I think we can take it for granted that if we could be bothered we'd
have an argument on whether it is better that the language be logical
or easy to use correctly.

---
And