From sentto-44114-15504-1031686540-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Tue Sep 10 12:36:16 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17oqnz-0006tB-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:36:11 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15504-1031686540-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Sep 2002 19:35:40 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 19:35:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 17736 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 19:35:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 19:35:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 19:35:39 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.28.2c57e488 (25711) for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:35:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <28.2c57e488.2aafa385@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:35:33 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_28.2c57e488.2aafa385_boundary" X-archive-position: 1035 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_28.2c57e488.2aafa385_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 12:54:20 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > > > ralcku could be a library. > > > > Are you saying that a library is one cukta? You've given me the > > argument right here. > > See above. Try to stay with me. >> This remark is dangerously close to undercutting the later claim not to have been personally insulting. I can see no evidence here that suggest xod has not been following the argument up to the point that this irrelevancy appears out of clear blue sky. Unless, of course, what is meant (and very poorly expressed) is that just about any book in a library (or every book in some specific collection, le'i cukta) might count as a ralcukta for someone -- or, inversely, that the books that would count for some people as ralcukta would fill a library. This is the point made later more clearly, but it has not yet been introduced into the discussion. So taking the sentence as presented is not failure to stick with you yet. Continuing to read it in the original sense when the new sense has been introduced -- assuming that it is clear (and it wasn't to me) that the further discussion is expatiating on this sentence -- is perhaps not following or perhaps a useful bit of rhetoric (the meanest trick is to take someone at their word). << > > Almost a third of the world would probably assume that ralcku was > > the Bible (that's the most important book, right?). > > > > Another quarter would assume it was the Koran. > > It contains the Bible and Koran. That makes it just as, if not more ralju. Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's also contains http://www.thehun.net/, which most people would not consider the most important book. >> So, the rest was meant to be commentary on the sentence, which means "The books that people would think are most important would fill a library" or some such. Not the most natural reading (or the second or third) but possible. I think the rhetorical question is again close to personally insulting -- close enought to declare a flame war surely (given that I get called a troll for far less and better justified). << Ummm, the actual concept of the web is about sharing educational resources between universities. 8) >> I like this move usually -- being totally literal to make your opponent look foolish. It is not cooperative, of course, and, in this case, just makes you look obtuse, so it probably fails (maybe it always does, considering the trouble it has gotten me into). << The whole *point* of lujvo is that someone should be able to dissect them and figure out what you mean. I will bet you *any* *amount* *of* *money* (and I mean that) that if you ask 20 non-lojbanists what 'principal (as in most important) book' means, with no other information, that no more than 1 or 2 will guess the web. >> That specification of "the whole of lujvo" would (and does) come as a shock to long-time lujvo makers. The whole point of lujvo is to cover semantic space using the limited set of devices available. The selection criteria for lujvo have never been restricted to those that a person can unpack out of context and from the elements alone (note the ambiguity of the underlying tanru for one thing, as well as the mass of metaphorical lujvo of yore). A good lujvo is generally -- and loosely speaking -- one that is seen as apt when it is understood, which need not be when it is first heard or even when it is first analysed in the absence of understanding. the best lujvo give ahahs when we get them, however that come about. The thoroughly literal ones drop out when better (more flavorful) ones come along (historical review possible). So your proposed test is irrelevant. << If a lujvo can't pass such a basic test of sanity, dammit, it's a *shitty* lujvo! >> This seems a rather severe judgment on something like ninety percent of the inherited Lojban vocabulary. I'm inclined to say that if it passes the test easily (say 15 or the 20 get it), then it is a shitty lujvo. << I thought I made some pretty damn good points. And I don't think that 'the entirety and subtlety' (and modesty? zo'o) of the original arguments are as far beyond my intellect as you seem to. >> I thought you made some good points too, though you do seem to have wandered off the argument a bit into what could look like a flame war, since it had little obvious to do with the argument you were responding to. And I agree that {ralju} leaves a lot to be desired at the moment as a word for the Web. --part1_28.2c57e488.2aafa385_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 12:54:20 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

> > ralcku could be a library.
>
> Are you saying that a library is one cukta? You've given me the
> argument right here.

See above. Try to stay with me.

>>
This remark is dangerously close to undercutting the later claim not to have been personally insulting. I can see no evidence here that suggest xod has not been following the argument up to the point that this irrelevancy appears out of clear blue sky. Unless, of course, what is meant (and very poorly expressed) is that just about any book in a library (or every book in some specific collection, le'i cukta) might count as a ralcukta for someone -- or, inversely, that the books that would count for some people as ralcukta would fill a library. This is the point made later more clearly, but it has not yet been introduced into the discussion. So taking the sentence as presented is not failure to stick with you yet. Continuing to read it in the original sense when the new sense has been introduced -- assuming that it is clear (and it wasn't to me) that the further discussion is expatiating on this sentence -- is perhaps not following or perhaps a useful bit of rhetoric (the meanest trick is to take someone at their word).

<<
> > Almost a third of the world would probably assume that ralcku was
> > the Bible (that's the most important book, right?).
> >
> > Another quarter would assume it was the Koran.
>
> It contains the Bible and Koran. That makes it just as, if not more ralju.

<sigh>

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's also contains http://www.thehun.net/, which most people would not
consider the most important book.
>>
So, the rest was meant to be commentary on the sentence, which means "The books that people would think are most important would fill a library" or some such. Not the most natural reading (or the second or third) but possible. I think the rhetorical question is again close to personally insulting -- close enought to declare a flame war surely (given that I get called a troll for far less and better justified).

<<
Ummm, the actual concept of the web is about sharing educational
resources between universities. 8)
>>
I like this move usually -- being totally literal to make your opponent look foolish. It is not cooperative, of course, and, in this case, just makes you look obtuse, so it probably fails (maybe it always does, considering the trouble it has gotten me into).

<<
The whole *point* of lujvo is that someone should be able to dissect
them and figure out what you mean.

I will bet you *any* *amount* *of* *money* (and I mean that) that if you
ask 20 non-lojbanists what 'principal (as in most important) book'
means, with no other information, that no more than 1 or 2 will guess
the web.
>>

That specification of "the whole of lujvo" would (and does) come as a shock to long-time lujvo makers. The whole point of lujvo is to cover semantic space using the limited set of devices available. The selection criteria for lujvo have never been restricted to those that a person can unpack out of context and from the elements alone (note the ambiguity of the underlying tanru for one thing, as well as the mass of metaphorical lujvo of yore). A good lujvo is generally -- and loosely speaking -- one that is seen as apt when it is understood, which need not be when it is first heard or even when it is first analysed in the absence of understanding. the best lujvo give ahahs when we get them, however that come about. The thoroughly literal ones drop out when better (more flavorful) ones come along (historical review possible). So your proposed test is irrelevant.

<<
If a lujvo can't pass such a basic test of sanity, dammit, it's a
*shitty* lujvo!
>>
This seems a rather severe judgment on something like ninety percent of the inherited Lojban vocabulary. I'm inclined to say that if it passes the test easily (say 15 or the 20 get it), then it is a shitty lujvo.

<<
I thought I made some pretty damn good points.
And I don't think that 'the entirety and subtlety' (and modesty? zo'o)
of the original arguments are as far beyond my intellect as you seem to.
>>
I thought you made some good points too, though you do seem to have wandered off the argument a bit into what could look like a flame war, since it had little obvious to do with the argument you were responding to. And I agree that {ralju} leaves a lot to be desired at the moment as a word for the Web.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_28.2c57e488.2aafa385_boundary--