a lojban dictionary editing system

Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "dikca"
[parent] [root]
Comment #2: Re: Signum convention
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 26 10:19:08 2021)

krtisfranks wrote:
> The current definition specifies that dikca3 defaults to the negative.
> note for "dikca" also says "(x3, a quantifier, can be expressed as a
> simple polarity using the numerals for positive and negative ma'u and
> ni'u); (explicitly) negative (= dutydikca), positive (= mardikca);
> current (= selmuvdikca, muvdikca; again default negative/electron
> current), charge (= klodikca, stadikca). See also lindi, xampo,
> flecu, maksi, tcana.".
> There are multiple references to default being negative or
> Usually, in Lojban, defaults are nonnegative values, usually +1.
> It is also the case that, if we were to name the signs of electricity
> scratch while knowing what we know now, then it would be rather more
> natural for us to label protons as negatively charged and electrons as
> positively charged. Notice that there is nothing inherent about
> referring to the electron's charge signum.
> Therefore, and consistent with other definitions which I have written, I
> propose that the signum convention for "dikca" be that numbers which are
> expressed as positive refer to charges which match that of the electron
> signum, that the default refer to such charges (so, the mention of
> "negative" in the definition is a translation – it still refers to the
> electron charge signum), etc., and that this convention be followed
> throughout Lojban. This will impact how we think of conventional
> (they will coincide with normal electron currents in Lojban), the
> definitions of magnetic poles, etc. There are several independent signa
> conventions in E&M, so the exact combinations matter.
> Caveat: Another consequence of this proposal would be that the original
> note for this word would have to be changed, or we would have to
> "negative" for "dutydikca" to mean "negative relative to (my proposed)
> Lojbanic convention, id est: the electron charge; thus: matching the
> proton charge signum", and likewise for "mardikca" (incidentally, the
> selection of the veljvo of which I do not comprehend). The original note
> would be somewhat inconsistent in its meaning between instances of
> mentions of signa. But, actually, I think that that is already bordering
> on the case as it was in the original interpretation.
> I think that these lujvo are undefined in JVS, so defining them as we
> should be easy. The trick would be to bring any instances of the usage
> any of these terms in pre-existing corpus material into alignment with
> this proposal.
> The result of this proposal, in brief, would be to make electron charge
> signum preference not just the default, but also the positive-valued
> easier) option for/in expression.
> A similar notice would be made for "xampo" and its derivatives, such
> "xapsnidu".
> Despite all of these concerns, I believe that this is the correct way to
> go forward.

Correction/clarification: The aforementioned lujvo are defined already,
but they lack specificity enough to avoid ambiguity wrt charge signum
conventions. We can clarify them at no cost. I would, even so, find a
rafsi other than "-mar-" though.

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 70 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?