> 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
> 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.