From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 13 09:07:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 16:07:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 37904 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 16:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 16:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 16:07:49 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.f8.217798a5 (4584) for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:07:33 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f8.217798a5.2ab36745_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15654 --part1_f8.217798a5.2ab36745_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/12/2002 7:08:14 AM Central Daylight Time, bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM writes: << > To me, a `work' is what is `put together', to be offered to the > public. An editor puts a `work' together, perhaps with guidance from > tradition (such as the guidance that specifies which parts of the > corpus constitute the Bible in a particular religious tradition (I know ... or at least, I can guess ... that you are going to remind me that that which constitutes an instance of a veridical `dog' may be of a `two headed dog'. But such a step takes us beyond the basic notion of `dog' into the cognitive linguistic territory that Lakoff discusses, such as `exemplar definitions' and `prototype definitions'. Lakoff's ideas are far beyond the current issue.) >> It seems to me that Lakoff is precisely what is relevant here; we are working off various exemplars (variously interpreted, as Mad Ludwig would add) and thus reaching different generalizations. For example. I see the Bible as a heterogenous pile of document, you see it as something gathered and put foreward by someone(s) for a purpose. So, we diverge sharply when we extend the notion into undecided territory. We could each, I suspect, come up with an example book that the other would not take as a book -- and certainly not as an exemplary one (I assume this is the point of the two-headed dog). But, again, my point is not that {cukta} does cover the net or a library or a heap of paer in various wastebaskets, but only that claiming that it does is not unfaithful to family that the word is pointing to. Bastards are kin, too, though we may not like it and we may delimit the family to exclude them. Still, considering them was not insane -- and certainly not unlojbanic. --part1_f8.217798a5.2ab36745_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/12/2002 7:08:14 AM Central Daylight Time, bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM writes:

<<

To me, a `work' is what is `put together', to be offered to the
public. An editor puts a `work' together, perhaps with guidance from
tradition (such as the guidance that specifies which parts of the
corpus constitute the Bible in a particular religious tradition

<snip>
(I know ... or at least, I can guess ... that you are going to remind
me that that which constitutes an instance of a veridical `dog' may be
of a `two headed dog'. But such a step takes us beyond the basic
notion of `dog' into the cognitive linguistic territory that Lakoff
discusses, such as `exemplar definitions' and `prototype definitions'.
Lakoff's ideas are far beyond the current issue.)
>>

It seems to me that Lakoff is precisely what is relevant here; we are working off various exemplars (variously interpreted, as Mad Ludwig would add) and thus reaching different generalizations. For example. I see the Bible as a heterogenous
pile of document, you see it as something gathered and put foreward by someone(s) for a purpose. So, we diverge sharply when we extend the notion into undecided territory. We could each, I suspect, come up with an example book that the other would not take as a book -- and certainly not as an exemplary one (I assume this is the point of the two-headed dog).
But, again, my point is not that {cukta} does cover the net or a library or a heap of paer in various wastebaskets, but only that claiming that it does is not unfaithful to family that the word is pointing to. Bastards are kin, too, though we may not like it and we may delimit the family to exclude them. Still, considering them was not insane -- and certainly not unlojbanic. --part1_f8.217798a5.2ab36745_boundary--