From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Sep 10 11:54:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 18:54:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 74574 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 18:54:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 18:54:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 18:54:21 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17oq9V-0006lF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:54:21 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17oq8v-0006ku-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:53:45 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17oq8o-0006kl-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:53:38 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:53:38 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Message-ID: <20020910185338.GH6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20020910182959.GF6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20020910143317.G68275-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020910143317.G68275-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1031 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 02:41:11PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > pc wrote that: > > "The long tradition has been for creative non-literal lujvo -- despite > the possibilities of cultural bias that that contains. This case does > not seem to be terribly creative...." > > This was discussing balcukta, not ralcku. I daresay the same ideas > hold across the pair. According to you, this lujvo is far beyond the > bounds of reason, but according to "tradition", it hardly is. I don't particularily find 'tradition' relevant in this case, but can I get some examples? > However, I think the question of what a cukta is and is not, and > whether a webpage/website/whole web qualifies as one, is more > interesting and more specifically germane than the general issue of > acceptable lujvo, which in any case is overridden by usage, making the > general trends irrelevant for any specific case. OK. I don't have any serious arguments that the web qualifies as a cukta. I still think ralcku is a bad lujvo. If you're not interested in stating your opinion on whether a lujvo needs to be meaningful or not, then I guess I can't force you to do so, but I would like to point out that you know where to find English. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/