Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:48:31 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:48:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199402081848.AA04000@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8242; Tue, 08 Feb 94 13:45:38 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4302; Tue, 08 Feb 94 13:46:17 EDT Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:44:48 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: cukta X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 8 08:44:48 1994 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET la and cusku (to ji'a le prani be fo mi pinka toi) di'e > 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 This definition has problems, too. I don't think one wants to say that "Hamlet" is a composition by Shakespeare, preserved in medium X. The medium is irrelevant here. > and that "cutka" be changed to take on the meaning of the physical > object. I think this is what lojbab suggests (see below) la djan mi di'e spuda > > Are two copies of "War and Peace" that are preserved in different media > > one {cukta}, or two {cukta}? If one, then the x5 place is wrong, if two, > > then we are talking of the physical object. > > I'm not sure what either you or the gismu list means by "medium". I interpret > the list as intending x5 to distinguish a book bound in hard covers, from > one bound in paper covers, from one stored on CD-ROM. That's how I interpret it. What I can't understand is how to make a useful predication using that place, if the book is not a copy, but the 'work' itself. (Thanks for the explanation of "convention".) la lojbab jarco le danfu > If the consensus is that the current definition is unsatisfactory, I am willing > to change it, but along lines like the following: > > a cukta is a realtionship between some unitary container of a 'work' and the > 'work' itself. Places for author/subject etc would thereby have to be expressed > by complicated expressions in x2. The medium of recording would be x3. This seems the best solution, I like it. > The negative (or positive, depending on how you look at it) is that I cannot > see how such a definition excludes a television movie videocassette (a book > of tv images?) and a whole bunch of other things. Maybe a {lo selpapri/lo selprina} default for x3? Even if it's not said explicitly, it will probably be taken as the default. > But it does give a physical object in x1. > > This would give something like > le re selpapri cu cukta le cfika po'u la jamna joi panpi le selprina (Notice that you changed my {je} to {joi} but you didn't change it to {la nunjamna joi nunpanpi}, but since we use {la} it can be anything we want! :) > > Does this offer anything to you and others who agree with you? I'm very happy with it. Jorge > > lojbab >