From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Sun Jul 24 17:06:09 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:06:09 -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 1DwqTq-0002Mp-UC for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:06:06 -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 j6OKZqH05987 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:35:53 +0100 Message-ID: <011701c590ac$a2b14b70$973e0751@sonyvaio> From: "And Rosta" To: References: <20050716010140.GU2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42D95380.802@lojban.org> <20050718044439.GE2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42DB5132.1040507@lojban.org> <925d1756050722083624970a05@mail.gmail.com> <007d01c58f19$acc170c0$973e0751@sonyvaio> <1122077937.2288.0.camel@localhost> <20050723002055.GL2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42E19A4B.7010904@lojban.org> <20050724005858.GE17178@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <00ef01c5909e$bec80820$973e0751@sonyvaio> <42E41EF9.3090601@lojban.org> Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:00:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response 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: 43 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 lojbab: > And Rosta wrote: >> I agree, so long as looking at pictures > > Young kids read picture books > >>& listening to sounds counts >> as "reading" > > Blind people read with braille (touch), so why should hearing be > forbidden as a reading method? I was thinking of nontextual webpages that may merely display pictures or play sounds. >>> Can you clarify this? >>> >>> More generally, please pick a web page (any web page), and describe >>> it using all 5 places of cukta. >> >> I find that regardless of what sort of cukta is involved, I don't know >> how to use all 5 places of "cukta". "x1 is book containing work x2 by >> author x3 for audience x4 preserved in medium x5". It seems to me >> that "book" corresponds to both "se cukta" and "xe cukta", > > "Book" corresponds to cukta, se cukta and xe cukta, but they are > different senses of "book" > > mi ca viska lo cukta be la'o gic. 1989 edition of Loglan 1 gic. bei la > djeims. kuk. braun. bei loi jbopre bei loi se papri pelji > > The x1 is a specific physical object, one of many that contains the work > in question; it also happens to be lo se papri, but I can look on the > loglan.org website to find a different x5 form of the same x1. If I > make a copy of that website on my local computer, I might talk about it > as a distinct x1 from the copy on whatever host maintains their website. I still don't get the difference between x1 and x5. In what sense does the loglan website have a different x5 form of the same x1 rather than a different x1 form of the same x2? > By contrast, an anthology might contain several works by one or more > authors all in one volume. The Bible is a single volume x1 book > containing multiple x2 books. Surely not: surely an anthology & the bible are as much an abstract text as any other text, and are not intrinsically physical. > Zondervan (a religious publisher) has > published an x5 edition of the Bible containing translations of several > x2 books, and they will do a print run of thousands of x1 books > containing these x2 books in media form x5 book. I appreciate the effort you've made in giving the example, but I am flummoxed by it. Specifically the x1/x5 contrast. >> It still seems to me, though, that "cukta" would apply to documents in >> general (including webpages) as much as it does to books. > > A document is more likely to be lo se cukta - a work. If you and I have > paper copies of a document, we usually say just that - we don't claim > that we have two documents but two copies/books containing one > work/document. But we might well claim to be holding documents in our hands, or heaping them up on our desks -- so 'documents' can also be (xe) cukta. --And.