From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Mon Jul 25 17:37:32 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:37:32 -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 1DxDRi-0006kN-4I for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:37:28 -0700 Received: from sonyvaio (host81-7-53-143.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.53.143]) by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j6PL6eH02976 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:06:41 +0100 Message-ID: <016e01c5917a$2ba04ad0$973e0751@sonyvaio> From: "And Rosta" To: References: <20050716010140.GU2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42D95380.802@lojban.org> <20050718044439.GE2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42DB5132.1040507@lojban.org> <925d1756050722083624970a05@mail.gmail.com> <007d01c58f19$acc170c0$973e0751@sonyvaio> <925d175605072414283ba9d1a5@mail.gmail.com> <011301c590a9$95475540$973e0751@sonyvaio> <925d175605072418357fc3e9a0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:35:54 +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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk id j6PL6eH02976 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 52 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 7/24/05, And Rosta wrote: >> xorxes: >> > 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.). > > No, I'm talking of webpages. A random example, searching for > "next page" in Google: > You can find at the bottom of the _page_ (probably not at the bottom of > your screen as you first open it) the ubiquitous "previous page" and > "next page" links. These pages are mostly of different lengths, and > will probably occupy a different number of paper pages if printed, and > they are not particularly formatted for printing. If you click on "next > page" > for a few pages, you will reach the last page of this particular selpapri, > and if you click on "previous page" a few times, you get to the first > page. Well yes of course, given that English calls webpages 'pages', this is what you'd expect, but it's a bit illogical to adduce this in a discussion of how apposite the metaphor is. > I don't think anyone can dispute that webpages are called pages in > English (or "páginas" in Spanish, etc). I don't find anything unintuitive > or strange about this metaphore either. It's not strange, but then English is much less exacting than Lojban when it comes to metaphorical extension. >> 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'. > > Yes, that was the case before windows environments, where the screen > played the role of a page rather than the role of a desktop, and the > names of those keys reflect that. > > ... >> "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. > > It shouldn't necessarily pick out papri rather than cukta. It's just that > because in English (and other languages) the things are called > pages and not books, then my first choice is papri, and I will prefer > something else only if papri is very inadequate. Otherwise it just adds > unnecessary confusion. I just don't see that papri is at all inadequate. The choice of 'page' in English is surely motivated by it being monosyllabic & part of core vocabulary, in contrast to the polysyllabic and narrower- register 'document'. If the same doesn't go for other languages that call webpages 'pages', then it is probably the case that they are calquing from English. Of course, if this has become an international calque, then it is legitimate to ask whether Lojban should use the same calque, & I'd be sympathetic to such an argument. But on purely semantic grounds, cukta seems preferable to papri, for reasons given in earlier messages. --And.