krtisfranks wrote: > The current definition specifies that dikca3 defaults to the negative. The > 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 electron-based. > Usually, in Lojban, defaults are nonnegative values, usually +1. > > It is also the case that, if we were to name the signs of electricity from > 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 "negative" > 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 in > 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 currents > (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 interpret > "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 wish > should be easy. The trick would be to bring any instances of the usage of > 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 (and > easier) option for/in expression. > > A similar notice would be made for "xampo" and its derivatives, such as > "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.
|