From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 11 01:32:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 08:32:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 7924 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 08:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 08:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 08:32:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.11.) id r.f7.2126c4cb (4012) for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:32:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f7.2126c4cb.2ab059ab_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: 15544 --part1_f7.2126c4cb.2ab059ab_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 5:02:45 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > Given the limited history of actual conversational usage of lojban, I > don't agree. Come to the IRC channel some time, where actual > conversations occur in lojban in real time. You won't see many lujvo, > I'll tell you that right now. >> And this is relevant to the issue of good lujvo exactly how? If there aren't many, then the test has not been applied much -- and people have not developed much skill in forming them on the fly. Point? << I'm not sure I have a good answer to that, beyond the fact that I don't see even a "blanu zdani" == "I had a dog that once got covered in blue paint when I lived in that house" type of connection between "ralju cukta" and "the world wide web". >> Oh, by this time, with all the discussion, {ralju cukta} is a lot closer to "the Web" than any of those remote kind of {blanu zdani} cases except "a house colored blue." This does not mean that there may not be insurmountable arguments against this usage, but it is no longer a stretch. By the way, it is this retrospective plausibility that makes good lujvo -- once you get it, it feels right. --part1_f7.2126c4cb.2ab059ab_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 5:02:45 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

Given the limited history of actual conversational usage of lojban, I
don't agree. Come to the IRC channel some time, where actual
conversations occur in lojban in real time. You won't see many lujvo,
I'll tell you that right now.

>>
And this is relevant to the issue of good lujvo exactly how? If there aren't many, then the test has not been applied much -- and people have not developed much skill in forming them on the fly. Point?

<<
I'm not sure I have a good answer to that, beyond the fact that I don't
see even a "blanu zdani" == "I had a dog that once got covered in blue
paint when I lived in that house" type of connection between "ralju
cukta" and "the world wide web".
>>
Oh, by this time, with all the discussion, {ralju cukta} is a lot closer to "the Web" than any of those remote kind of {blanu zdani} cases except "a house colored blue." This does not mean that there may not be insurmountable arguments against this usage, but it is no longer a stretch. By the way, it is this retrospective plausibility that makes good lujvo -- once you get it, it feels right.
--part1_f7.2126c4cb.2ab059ab_boundary--