From xod@thestonecutters.net Fri Oct 31 06:56:12 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AFah1-0000JF-Gn for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:56:03 -0800 Received: from granite.thestonecutters.net (localhost.thestonecutters.net [127.0.0.1]) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9VEpAV4087465 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:51:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h9VEp9kE087462 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:51:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) X-Authentication-Warning: granite.thestonecutters.net: xod owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:51:09 -0500 (EST) From: Invent Yourself To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: two concepts I haven't found any helpful translation In-Reply-To: <20031031031236.GA75669@allusion.net> Message-ID: <20031031094557.G87252-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 6529 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 On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:04:27PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > [...] > > > > > mutmi'i, IMO, is ass. > > > > On the other hand, it occurred to me that software is still software even > > if it's not being run. Is that true of pruce? The English gloss is not > > precise (as to the noun-like or verb-like nature of x1), but the fact that > > pu'u is in nu is a clue that lopruce is event-like. But an argument in the > > other direction is that the definition could easily have included that x1 > > is an event, and it doesn't. > > > > If a piece of software is never ever executed, what is "process" about it? > > Come now xod, you should know the tricks by now: it's still a {ka'e > pruce}. > > Anyway `samselpla' is by far the best lujvo yet proposed for this. > `sampruce' is, however, acceptable. On the basis of your fiat? > > Either way, it's a metaphor. Strictly, software is nothing but software. > [...] > > It *certainly* is not a metaphor in the way that {mutmi'i} is a > metaphor, if it is a metaphor at all (which it isn't). If I am to extract any meaning out of this mixture of confusion and opinion, I assume you're trying to say that software "is" algorithm, but it only "acts like" actual usable devices that people design and use for device-like purposes. -- Implicit in the term "national defense" is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. United States Supreme Court, U.S. v. Robel (1967)