From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 24 22:28:39 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1DwvW1-0006J2-3Y for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:28:37 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:28:37 -0700 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri Message-ID: <20050725052837.GU17178@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <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$973e0751@sonyvaio> <42E41EF9.3090601@lojban.org> <011701c590ac$a2b14b70$973e0751@sonyvaio> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <011701c590ac$a2b14b70$973e0751@sonyvaio> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 47 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 Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 01:00:52AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > lojbab: > >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? (I get it now) The x1 is a thing, not a form. The only places in which "ti" can fit for "cukta" are the x1, x3 and x4. In the case of the website versus the physical book (and, indeed, in all cases I can think of) both the x1 (the thing you can point at) and the x5 (the medium of information transmission used by the thing you are pointing at) change. You could have two book that differ only in their x1 place (two copies of the same book), but you could never have two books that differ only in their x5 places, as each copy of a work gets its own x1-of-cukta-ness. > >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. You could do it either way. ti cukta la genesis .e la kings li'o vs. ti cutka le xriso ke ralju censa. Both ways seem perfectly valid to me; the Bible can be said to be its own document or a collection smaller ones with validity in both cases. > >>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. No, they can't. They can be cukta or se cukta, but xe cukta is "paper" or "electrons on a disk" or "spoken word passed through the generations". You can't really hold those concepts, as they are more Mr. Paper (heh) than a stack of paper. -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/