From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Sep 11 14:10:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 21:10:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 76527 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 21:10:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 21:10:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 21:10:35 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020911211035.TZPR12192.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:10:35 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911170020.033532f0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:07:53 -0400 To: "jboste" Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) In-Reply-To: <02a601c259c1$ca994e00$4da503d5@oemcomputer> References: <20020911105811.U73477-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> <20020911180952.GM6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15590 At 08:33 PM 9/11/02 +0200, G. Dyke wrote: > > > Also, it neglects the unique, singleton nature of the WWW. (There is > > > only one WWW, > >If there is only one WWW, then it is moot to make a selbri out of it. It is >{la ueb} or {la civys} or some similar, hopefuly understandable, dairdai That is true, but yet people have the concept of "universe" even though supposedly there is only one of them. "la ueb." maybe the only referent for an x1 of any selbri meaning "the WWW", but of course there could be other places in the structure (and indeed if there is only one place, it probably should remain a name only). > > > "la ralcku" can be used, sidestepping this whole discussion. > >Only by people who were around when we had this discussion. I firmly believe >that the only words lojbanists *should* ever need to look up are already >published in wordlists. I disagree, since the words already in wordlists of lujvo are more or less limited to examples that were selected precisely because someone set forth a definition. >If a lujvo needs looking up (with the possible >exception of one used in some particular field, which has a complex place >structure, is often used in that field, but never by anyone else) it is >f**** useless. No, scrap that idea, any lujvo which is not created for zipf >purposes and understandable on the fly is useless. The latter is closer, but what constitutes being "understandable on the fly". Many (if not most) lujvo are used with no real effort being made by the speaker or the user to figure out their place structures because context and the source tanru are sufficient for communication. Thus by definition they were "understandable on the fly" at the time. But used in a different situation they may not be understandable. lojbab lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org