Message-Id: <m0qOT6n-000022C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 14 Jul 1994 11:16:50 EDT
Reply-To:     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: 2112
Lines: 58

la lojbab cusku di'e

> Well, regarding cukta, it is precisely one day too late to make any change
> even if I agreed, because I have declared the dictionary baseline of the
> gismu list .uocai.o'aru'e.u'u

It is really disheartening to read this. I stopped discussing the place
structure of cukta when _you_ proposed the structure:

        x1 is a book (physical object) containing work x2 in medium x3

(My wording, but I believe that's what you proposed.) Colin had proposed
something identical or very similar, and John Cowan said he agreed. I'm
sorry that the whole discussion was in vain, especially because I would
have kept at it if I knew you were ignoring it. (I don't have the old
postings at hand, but I believe that's how the discussion went.)

> In addition, I determined by inspection that a physical book is selpapri
> a be-paged document - it was already in the gismu list.

Yes, that was discussed too. It is more general in the sense that it
includes blank books, and less general in that it doesn't include video
tapes.

> I still like
> cukta to be a conceptual book which is a copy/manifestation of some work
> or collection of works in some medium.

That's exactly the definition you gave!!!

x1 is a copy/manifestation of some work or collection of works x2 in some
medium x3.

But that's not what the gismu list says.

With the decided meaning, is "Pride and Prejudice" a cukta? If yes, what
is its medium?

Does it make sense to say {finti lo cukta}, "to write a book"?

Does it make sense to say {bevri lo cukta}, "to carry a book"?

> Being essentially conservative,
> this was sufficient to let me feel that the issue is not urgent enough to
> delay the dictionary until we can debate it.

I understand your feelings, but I'm sorry you didn't say it before so as
to keep debating it anyway.

> If the existing definition
> doesn't work, someone can propose or start using a different definition
> in time for the 2nd edition of the dictionary %^)

You already proposed a different definition, but if the dictionary says
something different, using it will be very confusing.


Jorge