Message-Id: <199402100813.AA23335@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 03:11:46 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      cukta - forwarded post from jkoenig
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

======================
From jkoenig@hatch.socal.com Wed Feb  9 11:20:59 1994
Received: from hatch.socal.com by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA01196
  (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:20:49 -0500
Received: by hatch.socal.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.1)
        id <m0pUHg2-0003qpC@hatch.socal.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 94 08:22 PST
Message-Id: <m0pUHg2-0003qpC@hatch.socal.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 08:22 PST
From: jkoenig@hatch.socal.com (Gerald Koenig)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
To: lojbab@access.digex.net
Subject: lost messages
Cc: jkoenig@hatch.socal.com
Status: R

        Here are a couple of messages I wrote that
I don't see reflected.  I sent them to lojban@cuvmb.cc.colombia.edu.
Is that correct?  I am having lots of problems with my internet node
and will probably have to change.

        I would like to comment on the questions
        raised by Jorge LLambias on the "cukta" definition.

        cukta   book
        x1 is a book about subject/theme/story/
        x2  by author x3  for audience x4
        preserved in medium x5.
        this is a quantity of text and not the
        physical object.

Jorge said:  (I hope this is contextual) "It either
        has to be the physical object (that would be my
        choice), or the abstract work, to fit with
        ...{ciska}.. and the like.

        This is where I disagree.  It seems to me that
        any chunk of information has something physical
        associated with it, whether it be a genetic
        code, or the gismu list on my E: drive;
        which is a RAM disc.  That gismu list will
        disappear when I log off, and no one is
        in danger of being hit by it.  I still call
        it physical, it is electrons in motion and
        fields waveing, and an appropriate entry
        for x5 cukta.

        This discussion caused me to read Chapter 7 of
        Word and Object by  Quine on Nominalism and
        Realism, and it informed me quite a bit about
        physical vs. abstract.

        I looked up "libro" and found an entry for
        "libro blanco": "a paper book".  Is this a
        white page book or an empty book?

        In this regard it seems to me that it should
        be permissible to use some lojban word representing
        0 or the empty set in the x2 place of cukta,
        yielding a meaning of a blank book, or maybe a
        long formatted computer file not yet written to.

        "Cukta" to me is not really equivalvent to the
        english "book" or the spanish "libro".

        Goodbye, I've got to hit the (lojban) books.

         jkoenig@hatch.socal.com       Jerry


        I would like to say in a more clear way why
I believe the status quo definition of cukta is
reasonable , and reflects considerable wisdom
on the part of the people who put their energy
into it.
        The concept subsumes all forms of a
book regardless of medium, new or old,  in one
gismu, because of the x5 position: the
storage medium.  As I said previously, there
are no books without storage media in the
broad sense.  Authors I know speak of writing
a book long before putting pencil to paper,
their  medium  is their own brain. Later the
book is copied out to paper.  These books
have an x5 of: author's mind. (If it needs to
be expressed).
        The current cukta definition  expresses
the common meaning of "book" if x5 has something
like paper, ink, and glue in it. I don't see
that a separate word isomorphic with old english
"book" is needed.
        In cases where more than one author is
bound physically into a volume, x1 and x3 can
reflect this.
        In the case of a blank notebook, x1,x2,x3
can contain some kind of null operator---I am sure
more skilled lojbanists than I can find them.
        Finally, in the current definition,the
designers were actually following the trend of
modern English usage, which has expanded the meaning
of "book" beyond: "A set of written sheets of skin
or paper or tablets of wood or ivory"-Webster.
        I do very much like Art Protin's suggestion
of re-defining the x1 omitting the word "book".
He suggests  "composition", I think this may be too
narrow, some term denoting a connected body of text
would lessen the confusion around the current way
of looking at the concept,"book".


jkoenig@hatch.socal.com                djer.


=======================