From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Sun Jul 24 16:44:21 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:44:21 -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 4.52) id 1Dwq8l-0001vk-Eb for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:44:19 -0700 Received: from sonyvaio (host81-7-63-98.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.63.98]) by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j6OKDqH04761 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:13:58 +0100 Message-ID: <011301c590a9$95475540$973e0751@sonyvaio> From: "And Rosta" To: References: <20050716010140.GU2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42D95380.802@lojban.org> <20050718044439.GE2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42DB5132.1040507@lojban.org> <925d1756050722083624970a05@mail.gmail.com> <007d01c58f19$acc170c0$973e0751@sonyvaio> <925d175605072414283ba9d1a5@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:38:58 +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: 42 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: > On 7/22/05, And Rosta wrote: >> My point was that a physical page gives a chunk of text that >> is delimited by constraints of the medium rather than of >> the textual content. To a large extent the 'nonphysicality' >> of the e-medium gets rid of such constraints, so there is >> no close analogue of the physical page. But of the analogues >> that there are, the least distant is the screenful. > > I don't know how we could measure that, but in any case that is > not the usual analogy in English. In the analogy used in English, > you can have more than one page showing in one screenful, and > usually only a part of a page shows throw a window. When you > reduce the size of the window, you reduce the part of the page > that you can see through the window, but the page remains the > same. That is when the page is an electronic representation of the physical page, typically in a document formatted to be printed in pages (a word-processing document, a pdf file, etc.). But here we are dealing with of physical pages But once we get to metaphorical extension away from the physical page, 'Page Up' and [Page Down' have traditionally meant 'up/down a screenful'. > To me, the best analogy is that a page is a container that can > be filled with visual content, and in the case of {papri}, they are > orgenized as part of a connected whole. A page need not contain > just text, it can also contain pictures for example. Or, it could > be empty. So many, but not all, webpages are or can be te tcidu. "A container that can be filled with visual content" seems a reasonable basis for the analogy, I agree. Why that should pick out papri rather than, say, cukta, is not clear though. --And.