From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Jul 26 01:17:37 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lakermmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.240.37])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1DxKd0-0004ES-VW
	for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:17:33 -0700
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [24.250.99.39])
          by lakermmtao02.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050726081708.MOA14195.lakermmtao02.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]>
          for <llg-members@lojban.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:17:08 -0400
Message-ID: <42E5F20A.2000008@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:19:22 -0400
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  llg-members@lojban.org
Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri
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>	 <20050725051002.GT17178@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d175605072505575a42b194@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <925d175605072505575a42b194@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 53
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org
X-list: llg-members

Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 7/25/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> 
>>The Archivist made it very clear that papri is a two-sided, physical
>>page.  Whether it's adequate or not isn't the issue; the issue is
>>that it is *unrelated*.
> 
> I thought the adequateness of {papri} to translate "webpage"
> was the main issue of the discussion. 
> 
> If lo papri is just lo boxfo,

lo boxfo isn't necessarily bound or even bindable.  lo papri is (at 
least in theory) a collection of bindable, indeed bound, objects.

 > then its keyword needs serious
> adjustment. In English "page" may be used with both senses

Precisely.

We had to choose one or the other sense (or something else entirely) as 
the basic meaning of "papri".  Polysemy is not permitted.  We have to 
know, as you say below, whether a bound object has "n" papri or "n/2" 
papri.  We determined that the 2-sided page was more basic, especially 
since most page numbering schemes do not in fact number all the pages, 
but may treat front-matter and appendices differently, and skip 
numbering blank pages.  It is not only the numbered pages that are 
bound, and the key *relation* in papri is that the set of pages are 
bound (or bindable).

lojbab