Message-Id: <199310290021.AA03609@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Thu, 28 Oct 1993 20:10:51 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: {sorcu} definition
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

la bob cusku di'e

>
>     sorcu soc sro      store
>     x1 is a store/deposit/supply/reserve of materials x2 in containment x3
>


> A store or supply of an entity requires that it be separated from the
> rest of the universe.  If not, you don't need to store it.

I agree that if you "store" something, you are putting it somewhere.
The problem seems that "supply" and "reserve", refer only to the abstract
concept. What I say is that this concept by itself is useful, for the cases
where the {vasru} is absent or irrelevant.


> Thus, if
> you are living in a breathable atmosphere, as on large parts of the
> surface of the Earth, you do not need to store air.

Right, because your air supply seems infinite. You can say that the
atmosphere is our supply/reserve of air. No relevant container.

> However, if you
> are in a submarine, you do need a reserve of air (or oxygen),
> which must be in a container; or else you need to manufacture your
> air, as is done in nuclear submarines (which also contain stores of
> air).

In this case, {le sorcu cu se vasru}.

> As a practical matter, the nature of the container for stores has been
> and still is very important.

No doubt. I agree that when in English the word "store" is used, the
container is usually relevant, while if you use "supply", you are not
in general refering to a container. Some supplies are _stored_ in
containers.

> Lack of believable, inexpensive, unrestricted, legal encryption hurts
> electronic storage in the US.  People fear that teenagers, extreme
> political groups, government agents, or competitors will read their
> records.  Encryption is a container of privacy for electronic storage.

I can see this as a store, container, but not as a supply, reserve.


>     "They are collecting the supplies needed for the trip."
>     "Our reserve of wood is going fast."
>
>     In these cases, there may or may not be a container for the sorcu, and
>     it is totally irrelevant if there is ....
>
> Hey!  In both circumstances there are containers for the
> supplies/reserves and in both cases the containers are very relevant.

The collected supplies are not all in one place, they are distributed
in the homes of all the members of the expedition. The reserve of wood
is also not in one place. Part of it is still in the form of trees.

> My mother prepared for a picnic not long ago.  She asked me to help
> her put on the pack carrying lunch.

The night before the trip, when the supplies were distributed in various
places in the kitchen, were they not supplies? Were they other supplies,
since they were not the same supplies-in-the-pack? What was it that was
put in the pack, if not the supplies?

> One of the supplies she had
> collected for this little trip was a container of orange juice.

Ok. Her "supply-of-orange-juice" was inside a "container". Two different
concepts.

> Unfortunately, the top was loose.  I saw orange juice seeping out of
> the pack that she had not noticed.

Clearly a {vasru} problem, not a {sorcu} one.

> As for reserves of wood....I can tell you, logs burn better if they
> are dry rather than wet.

Really? :)

> The container is important.  Open sky is not
> as good as shed roof.

Definitely. We have to be careful in our choice of {vasru} for our
{sorcu be le mudri}

> In both the sentences used as examples, the speaker might not mention
> the x3 place, but they are part of the concept of what you are
> distinguishing or separating from the rest of the universe, and how
> you are doing so.

How would you say in Lojban "take the reserve of gold from the safe to
the bank"? Does the reserve change when moved to another container?

> {sorcu} is well defined as is, with a container place.

ienai
co'o mi'e xorxes