From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 17 21:40:06 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DuNQB-0002Bm-PN
	for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:40:03 -0700
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:40:03 -0700
To: llg-members@lojban.org
Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri
Message-ID: <20050718044003.GD2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org
References: <20050716010140.GU2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <00fd01c589af$7b6536c0$d03e0751@sonyvaio>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00fd01c589af$7b6536c0$d03e0751@sonyvaio>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 27
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org
X-list: llg-members

On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:08:03AM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> >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). 

I suppose.

> Secondly, in what way is a webpage an analogue of a physical page?

Smallest complete unit, I suppose.

> 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.

The problem is there are *no* good words for "document".

cusku is agentive, which doesn't apply well to group works.  tcidu
requires a reader.  cukta requires being a physical container ([x1
is a manifestation/container [a physical object or its analogue] of
a work/content,), prina doesn't help, ciska seems to be talking
about the physical act of writing.

cukta is actually pretty good for a web page in terms of place
structure, but has conflicting keyword problems and as I said seems
to require physicality.  Even the place structure has problems,
though; I have no idea what the difference between the x1 and x2 of
cukta would be WRT a web page.

The only think I've found that doesn't completely break down is
vreji, where the x2 and x3 are going to overlap pretty strongly most
of the time, but other than that it's not too bad.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/