Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n16.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.71]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17onX7-0001bO-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:06:33 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15485-1031673960-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.199] by n16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Sep 2002 16:06:01 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 16:06:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 71658 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 16:05:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 16:05:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 16:05:59 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.176.e40fb19 (4529) for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <176.e40fb19.2aaf7262@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:05:54 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Archive location. Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_176.e40fb19.2aaf7262_boundary" X-archive-position: 1016 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Content-Length: 9390 Lines: 211 --part1_176.e40fb19.2aaf7262_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/9/2002 6:55:22 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > I'd just prefer that "balcukta" doesn't become the generally-used lujvo > for "web" (because it sucks much). (I guess tend to prefer more literal > lujvo when possible...). > >> The long tradition has been for creative non-literal lujvo -- despite the possibilities of cultural bias that that contains. This case does not seem to be terribly creative -- and there are a lot of dissimilarities to books that seems to cut it off. {balcukta} looks more like an encyclopedia than the Web. (The long practice has been for literalistic compunds modified by length and complexity considerations.) ragnarok: << Just because it's not a book, the web can still cukta. >> Depends on what you mean by a book (the only English word of significance in the definition). I suppose that the "medium" place allows some latitude, but the author and work requirements seems to limit the possibilities. jordan: << . OTOH cukta gives us almost nothing other than the word "book" as the definition. We really have to assume it means book (I suppose magazines and such probably count also). >> Well, it certainly goes beyond codices, clearly allowing "talking books", scrolls, the Classics on stone tablets, and so on. But how far it goes is unclear (new technologies make new kinds of books, I suspect). << ja'o zo balcukta traji leka malglico .isemu'ibo mi nelcu'a zo jondatnymu'e poi xamgu fi leka lojbo >> {balcukta} is pretty clearly not malglico, since the web is not a big book in English and there is nothing particularly English about the construction. The problem is just whether {cukta} applies at all, even analogically or metaphorically. "connected data universe" is not bad as a metaphor (not clever, but pretty descriptive). It may be a tad long for usage, and I don't like it much, but ... << > .e'u le jondatnymu'e > > > > Umm. There's no nice way to say this. > > > > Of all the ways that I've seen people try to come up with lojban words > > for the web, that is the one I like the least. > > ka'u la nitcon. finti le valsi .i mu'i ma do traji leka na nelci ri Because, dammit, there are no universes involved. Although looking at the definition, I see it incorporates great little pieces of malglico: e.g. 'universe of discourse', or 'world of birds'; OK, maybe it's not so bad. >> Again, what does "universe" mean? The definition is not malglico (it can't be, can it?), but "universe" may not be the best word as a key. I wonder if The Universe is a munje -- it is complete but dubiously ordered and not obviously defined by rules (the "rules" are, if anything, defined by it). pier: << I don't like {skamrxuebe} because it's not a computer. And the Web has too many works, authors, and audiences to be a cukta, even a balcukta. Maybe someone will come up with a good brivla, but until then I think we should just say {la .ueb}. >> I like the conclusion for the most part, though it seems the whole must have some meaningful predicate in the language. The objection to {skamruebe} is ill-aimed, since the role of the prefix in these creations is only to get one into the right area, not to actually be part of the description (cf. the radicals in Chinese characters -- as officially understood). robin: << x1 is a Internet web page/web site/piece of content provided via HTTP or related protocols displaying content x2 for purpose x3 with owner x4 found at Internet address x5 >> And the whole thing would be {piro loi} of that? Nice, and probably about right size-wise. --part1_176.e40fb19.2aaf7262_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/9/2002 6:55:22 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<
I'd just prefer that "balcukta" doesn't become the generally-used lujvo
for "web" (because it sucks much).  (I guess tend to prefer more literal
lujvo when possible...).
>>

The long tradition has been for creative non-literal lujvo -- despite the possibilities of cultural bias that that contains.  This case does not seem to be terribly creative -- and there are a lot of dissimilarities to books that seems to cut it off.  {balcukta} looks more like an encyclopedia than the Web.  (The long practice has been for literalistic compunds modified by length and complexity considerations.)

ragnarok:
<<
Just because it's not a book, the web can still cukta.
>>
Depends on what you mean by a book (the only English word of significance in the definition).  I suppose that the "medium" place allows some latitude, but the author and work requirements seems to limit the possibilities. 

jordan:
<<
.  OTOH cukta gives us
almost nothing other than the word "book" as the definition.  We really
have to assume it means book (I suppose magazines and such probably count
also).
>>

Well, it certainly goes beyond codices, clearly allowing "talking books", scrolls, the Classics on stone tablets, and so on.  But how far it goes is unclear (new technologies make new kinds of books, I suspect).

<<
ja'o zo balcukta traji leka malglico .isemu'ibo mi nelcu'a zo
  jondatnymu'e poi xamgu fi leka lojbo
>>

{balcukta} is pretty clearly not malglico, since the web is not a big book in English and there is nothing particularly English about the construction.  The problem is just whether {cukta} applies at all, even analogically or metaphorically.
"connected data universe" is not bad as a metaphor (not clever, but pretty descriptive).  It may be a tad long for usage, and I don't like it much, but ...

<<
>   .e'u le jondatnymu'e
> >
> > Umm.  There's no nice way to say this.
> >
> > Of all the ways that I've seen people try to come up with lojban words
> > for the web, that is the one I like the least.
>
>   ka'u la nitcon. finti le valsi .i mu'i ma do traji leka na nelci ri

Because, dammit, there are no universes involved.

Although looking at the definition, I see it incorporates great little
pieces of malglico:

e.g. 'universe                     of discourse', or 'world of birds';

<sigh>

OK, maybe it's not so bad.
>>

Again, what does "universe" mean?  The definition is not malglico (it can't be, can it?), but "universe" may not be the best word as a key. I wonder if The Universe is a munje -- it is complete but dubiously ordered and not obviously defined by rules (the "rules" are, if anything, defined by it).

pier:
<<
I don't like {skamrxuebe} because it's not a computer. And the Web has too
many works, authors, and audiences to be a cukta, even a balcukta. Maybe
someone will come up with a good brivla, but until then I think we should
just say {la .ueb}.
>>
I like the conclusion for the most part, though it seems the whole must have some meaningful predicate in the language.  The objection to {skamruebe} is ill-aimed, since the role of the prefix in these creations is only to get one into the right area, not to actually be part of the description (cf. the radicals in Chinese characters -- as officially understood).

robin:
<<
x1 is a Internet web page/web site/piece of content provided via HTTP or
related protocols displaying content x2 for purpose x3 with owner x4
found at Internet address x5
>>
And the whole thing would be {piro loi} of that? Nice, and probably about right size-wise.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_176.e40fb19.2aaf7262_boundary--