Message-Id: <m0pTGes-0000Q9C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 6 Feb 1994 16:03:30 EST
Reply-To:     Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cukta
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 4300
Lines: 103

Says lojbab:

> 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.

This problem would not have arisen if the talk had been in Spanish, because
that type of "book" is never a "libro".

> 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. The result was to treat the gismu as referring to the work and not to
 the
> physical object - it is most in keeping with the natural place structure
> and the widest range of usages for the word in English and in other languages.
> (Feel free to disagree on the latter if you know better - the multilingual
> dictionaries aren't too clear on this).

Well, I can only speak for the usage in Spanish, in which "libro" refers
mainly to the physical object that contains a written work. (The book you
take to school to write on, for instance, is not a "libro", it's a
"cuaderno", which fits very well with {selpapri}.)

Of course, the word is also used like in English to refer to a work ("obra"),
but this is clearly a derived abstraction.


> Two copies of War and Peace on paper COULD be one or two values for x5
> - the value is le selpapri or lei re selpapri.

I'm not sure you understand my question. How would you answer:

la jamna je panpi cu cukta fu ma

You have to be talking of a particular copy to answer this question. The x5
place is totally irrelevant to the "work".

> I can weasel on the text samples you give, except one.  Except that one, we
> are dealing with "le" cukta.

I think this is not fair. If one can't use {lo cukta} in those examples,
then they're extremely misleading. The meaning of {cukta} one learns from
them is the physical object.

> And in any case, I think all of the sentences
> except that one work if "le cukta" refers to the text in the book as well as
> the book.

You hit someone (in the arm) with the work? You carry the work around?
You point to it with your finger? It's under the chair? ki'a!!!!

> The other might depend on whether the text is in brown ink, or
> whether the selpapri is brown %^).

If the selpapri is brown, that doesn't make the "work" brown.


> 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.

> The existence of x5 means that it is the latter - two copies of War and Peace
> are re cukta as well as re xe cukta (unless both copies are in a single
 volume)

Then it's the copy, but not the physical copy? I think this is the worst
possible choice. Each set of volumes of "The Encyclopaedia Britannica" is
then one {cukta}?  !oiro'e

(And I doubt "book" ever has this meaning in English.)

It either has to be the physical object (that would be my choice), or the
abstract work, to fit with {pemci}, {lifri}, {cfika}, {prosa}, and the like.


> The term 'convention' is Cowan's, and is used in all of the works of
 authorship
> to refer to some other thing that a body of text/music has that might not be
> well-labelled as 'subject'.  This allows us to include the 'subject'place
 which
> is almost always relevant, without having to zi'o it for those rare works
> that do not have a 'subject'.  (Actually musical compositions are a bit more
> common in being written to a convention rather than a subject).

I still don't understand, but then my musical knowledge is quite limited...

So in the case of a musical composition, the {cukta} would be a copy of
the partiture, but not the physical copy. I have trouble grasping it.


Jorge
>
> lojbab
>