Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:23:03 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlRoh-0008HR-Af; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:22:55 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:22:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlRnz-0008HD-Nu for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:22:07 -0700 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlRnr-0008GP-Iv for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:22:07 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:2000:2a0:c9ff:feab:76e2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD3694781 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:20:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n89IKrOD016349 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:20:53 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id n89IKmHX016347 for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:20:48 +0200 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:20:48 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: [jvsw] New NatLang Word network node -- By totus Message-ID: <20090909182048.GK2685@nvg.org> References: <20090909160710.GJ2685@nvg.org> <20090909163102.GI29029@digitalkingdom.org> <913412.22742.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <913412.22742.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 1480 Lines: 36 On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:54:34AM -0700, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Robin Lee Powell > > To: jbovlaste@lojban.org > > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:31:02 PM > > Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: [jvsw] New NatLang Word network node -- By totus > > > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:07:10PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > > >    Word:        network node > > > > > > > >    In Sense:    as in computer network > > > > > > >    Word:        network node > > > > > > > >    In Sense:    as in the Internet > > > > > > What is the difference between these two? Why does it need to have > > > a sub-sense at all? It is hardly a polysemous term. > > > > The first could be a node in any computer network, past, present or future > e.g. Arpanet.  The second refers to nodes specifically on the internet. No, I mean, when an English speaker hears the word "network node", will he or she even consider the possibility that it could be two different words? I assert that when "network node" refers to the Internet, it's _the same_ word as when it refers to any computer network. By analogy, the English word "rose" could refer to red roses or white roses, but there is no English word "rose" that means "red rose", or that means "white rose". -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Hic est Olaus Brummus Ursus paulus silvanos Tiddeli-tiddeli bummus Mi nomen Brummus est