From xod@thestonecutters.net Wed Sep 11 08:56:48 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17p9rB-0002Im-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:56:45 -0700 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8BFug573794 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:56:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:56:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Invent Yourself To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020911105811.U73477-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1111 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la robin pu cusku di'e > ralcku could be a library. Robin, now it occurs to me that you were attempting a reductio ad absurdum. However, it failed to make its point because I had incorrectly assumed that you had read and understood my original post. On principle I will not repeat what I have already posted (and also out of practicality, because what was ignored once can be ignored twice), but will offer this much: my original post did note a feature of distinction between libraries and the web, and in ignoring it your reductio falls apart. Everyone, I've been using the word "cukta" to mean roughly: a collection of documents and/or pages. I don't believe that I have yet heard an argument that contradicts this by adding more restrictions to the definition which are derived from the place structures, and not simply induced from the stereotypical "book". This includes Mark's reservations, the most cogent thus far. If a book is roughly a collection of pages, then the web roughly appears as a single book, with the added benefit of the malglico argument (completely irrelevant, but what seems to inspire respect in this discussion) that the object which appears in the browser, and is at this moment in history usually a single html file, is also referred to in English as "a page". The blurriness of the distinction between individual but linked collections of these pages is a clue that we are dealing with a mass, and that we could be aiming for something like lei {hypertext pages}. However, this unnecessarily restricts us to hypertext pages, or forces us into a lengthy and impotent discussion concerning which objects do or can constitute web resources. Good luck finding a lujvo for "web resource" that passes your test of being decomposable and understandable without context. Also, it neglects the unique, singleton nature of the WWW. (There is only one WWW, but there can be any number of masses of web resources in existence.) "la ralcku" can be used, sidestepping this whole discussion. And "le" leaves such room for latitude that in practice and with the publicity generated by this discussion, "le ralcku" can surely be used with understanding now. On a parallel note, it's interesting that the people who were around when the notion of lujvo was being developed have a quite different understanding of the intent behind lujvo than those who came much later in the game. Poor communication? -- Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation? -- Howard Zinn