Message-Id: <m0pTbW8-0000Q9C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 7 Feb 1994 14:02:00 EST
Reply-To:     protin@SUMMIT.NOVELL.COM
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         protin@SUMMIT.NOVELL.COM
Subject:      Re: cukta
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 4257
Lines: 106

Folks,
    Jorge Llambias quotes lojbab and comments:

>> A hidden question is whether le cukta, as well as le pemci and all
>> other forms of expression are the words themselves or a copy of the
>> words in some media.
>
> I'd say the words themselves. No matter how many copies there are,
> there is only one "The Raven", by Poe. I would not put "book" in the
> same category with "poem". If {cukta} is to be in this category,
> then the x5 has to go, and also any mention of the English word
> "book", which has mainly another meaning, IMHO.

This would be a very good time for English speakers to transitition
from confusion to separate terms for the work and the medium.  The
work is software and is medium independent.  "The Raven" is a poem
that was written and owned (ownership has expired) by E. Poe,
regardless of whether it is printed in a book, put on an LP of
spoken poetry, in a film with actors & special effects, or some
electronic encoding of one or more of these expressions.

    The medium of print on bound paper needs a term which is clearly
distinct from various things that can be expressed on that paper.

    It sounds a little like some mistake was made in using the
English (codeword) book for describing the Lojban term 'cukta'
and much of the examples in the lessons use the term improperly.

[As I construct these comments, I find that this an aweful mess.]

Lojbab comments
> This one was much debated at a LogFest a couple of years ago.
> The question was whether a physical book with no text was a
> book (you can buy these in the store for use as diaries, etc.),
> and if so, who was the author, what was the subject, etc.
> Then we asked whether a book on microfilm or computer was a
> book, even though it did not have the physical form - it does
> have all the other relevant places though.  Then we asked
> whether an anthology - a bound volume that migh contain
> several 'books' in it like the Bible is one book or many;
> likewise whether a multi-volume work of prose is one book or
> many.

There is the problem, English code words.  The question of "what
is a book?" is not at all relavent.  The question is what is
"cukta".  "Cukta", according to the gi'uste, does not describe
the blank book that you buy, "cukta" is what you will put into
that blank book.  "Cukta" can easily be on microfilm or somewhere
in a vast collection of interconnected computers like the Internet.
The only ambiguity left by the definition in the gi'uste is how
to deal with nested "cukta", ie a cutka made of several cutka.


    I suggest that either:

1)
the gi'uste gets changed to have a new gismu for

x1 is a composition about subject/theme/story x2 by author x3
for audience x4 preserved in medium x5

and that "cutka" be changed to take on the meaning of the physical
object.

or 2)

Change all those erroneous examples in the lessons and actively
work to undo the misinstruction of lojban enthusiasts everywhere.
(This would include finding and fixing all usage in the body of
collect lojban usage and giving the feed back to everyone who
made this mistake.)


As to the lojab quote and comment by Chris Handley

> Lojbab writes:
>> My data is based on 75315 words of Lojban text (367K) compared to
>> Cowan's
>
> Am I one of the last of a vanishing breed that still believes that
> 'data' is a plural word, or has usage overtaken (as in so many other
> cases). If that is the case when can we expect to see 'datas',
> 'medias' and so on?

The usage that I seen (& commit) is that 'data' is like 'money';
it is both plural and singular.  Its meaning is plural, but the
syntax of its usage is sungular.  Just as 'moneys' refers to two
or more separate pools of money, distinguished by owner or issuer
or something, so 'datas' would refer to two or more separate pools
of data, like "Comparing the work of those researchers, the datas
are not wholely consistant."  Though, I suspect that the singular
form would still be used even in that example, suggesting that
data cannot be kept separate.

    thank you,
    Art Protin


Arthur Protin <protin@summit.novell.com>
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and
are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.