> (This post applies to dikca and kuardicka'u too.)
> If Benjamin Franklin had been slightly wiser about the future, he would
> have selected/defined electrons to have positive electric charge. Lojban
> has the chance to fix this histouric error. And I think that we should.
> will eventually be writing our own textbooks for this stuff in Lojban
> anyway, so we can create our own conventions- and we can be wiser with
> hindsight. As such, I ultimately wish to tie this and kuardicka'u's
> definitions' default conventions to the charge of the electron and to
> the definition of dikca as is, but with the caveat that a true
> speaker would in fact call "positive electric charge" for that which we
> name "negative electric charge".
> All other particles, physics equations/expressions, etc. would have to
> follow a similar convention (which might mix up quark names, not that I
> want them to follow the English system anyway).
I have changed the definition from:
"x1 is measures equal to/is an elementary positive electric charge [e;
the charge of the proton] in electric charge, under signum convention
x2 (default: proton has positive charge)"
"x1 is measures equal to/is an elementary negative electric charge
[-e; negative of the charge of the proton, id est the charge of the
electron] in electric charge, under signum convention x2 (default:
proton has positive charge)".
This ameliorates the issue somewhat, but I still want it to be clear that
a Lojbanic speaker would in fact call a proton "negatively electrically
charged". The definition is written in English and follows those poor
conventions, but it is not the Lojbanic mindset to have the default name
the proton as "electrically positive".