Re: direction, dimension

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

jorge:
> > > As for {nerfa'a}, I'm not sure what it is. What kind of object
> > > fills the x1 of {farna}?
> > I think it should be a destination - the location x2 would reach
> > if x2 were moving.
> Ok, that does make sense.
> Now, what is the direction in which a pen lead is rigid?

I don't know the words, but here's what the meaning should be.
The sumti place for the "direction" of rigidity should express
the path such that motion along it is resisted. In the case
of the pencil lead, it is rigid along two paths, the one defined
by its longest dimension ("lengthways"), and the other defined by its
shorter dimensions ("sideways").

> > > Well, {cimde} gives me similar difficulties. I don't really know
> > > what to put in the x1. How do you say "this is two-dimensional"?
> > {ti relmemselcimde}, {ti se cimde be re da}?
> Yes, well, what are the two dimensions of a circle, for example?
> I could understand a gismu that meant "x1 is x2-dimensional", but
> I don't think that it makes any sense to say that there are exactly
> two (or three) things that are the dimensions of some object.
> Could you list those two or three things for a given object?
[...]
> It makes almost no sense to say that there are exactly two things
> that are the dimensions of an object.

Surely it makes sense to say that a circle is defined in two dimensions
of space. You're quite right that if you're talking about inherent
dimensions of an object their individuation is contingent on properties
of the object, e.g. longest, shortest; or vertical, transverse, lateral.
I don't think we have words for those yet. And a circle or a sphere
does not have the necessary properties for us to individuate its
dimensions (unless it's moving, in which case (if we go by English)
we have a weak basis for identifying a transverse (I mean front:back)
dimension).

---
And