From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Fri Jul 15 19:38:55 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk ([62.41.128.20]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.50) id 1DtcZj-0003Mc-U8 for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:38:53 -0700 Received: from sonyvaio ([217.140.36.70]) by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j6FNCfH10615 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:12:41 +0100 Message-ID: <00fd01c589af$7b6536c0$d03e0751@sonyvaio> From: "And Rosta" To: References: <20050716010140.GU2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 03:08:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 23 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@v21.me.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members > xorxes and I are fighting over whether "papri" can be used for web > page, as though the definition was "x1 ia a page of mass of pages > x2". In other words, is the "[physical]" in the definition intended > to have prescriptive force? Not an answer to your question, but the force of "physical" strikes me as irrelevant in two ways. Firstly, all gismu's senses are susceptible to metaphorical extension (e.g. from a physical page to a nonphysical page). Secondly, in what way is a webpage an analogue of a physical page? A 'nonphysical' analogue of a paper page would be a screenful of text (i.e. the 'page' of PageUp and PageDown), i.e. a chunk delimited by the nature of the medium rather than of the content. A webpage is a kind of document rather than a kind of page. Forgive my posting these comments to this forum, but I didn't see where the original discussion was taking place. --And.