From xod@thestonecutters.net Sun Aug 15 23:10:15 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 22551 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2004 06:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2004 06:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2004 06:10:14 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1BwahB-0002To-0G for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:10:13 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BwagZ-0002TD-3y; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:09:35 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thestonecutters.net ([63.251.19.112] helo=chert.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BwagN-0002Su-Ck for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:09:23 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (h-67-101-254-140.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net [67.101.254.140]) by chert.thestonecutters.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D7D148001 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41204F78.4070103@thestonecutters.net> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:08:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <149.307305fd.2e4d48f7@wmconnect.com> <20040812223150.GM30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <411CE083.3070909@thestonecutters.net> <20040815221840.GB2210@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20040815221840.GB2210@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-archive-position: 8456 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: xod Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net Subject: [lojban] Re: only one lujvo per concept? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22876 Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 11:38:43AM -0400, xod wrote: > > >>The breadth of a lujvo is whatever we say it is. >> >>How does mucti minji cover algorithms more than skami selplatu, or >>skami pruce? >> >> > >An algorithm has nothing to do with computers, for one thing. I don't understand this response. You complained that " mutmi'i is also used, but I don't like it very much (too broad; applies to algorithms as well as code)." And I said "The breadth of a lujvo is whatever we say it is. How does mucti minji cover algorithms more than skami selplatu, or skami pruce? An algorithm is a process; that appears as a keyword in platu, pruce, but not in minji. >>If you were not a computer geek, why would you think of an application >>as a "plan/arrangement/plot/[schematic]" or any sort of process? >> >> > >Code, and a running program respectively. mutmi'i is the best I'm aware >of for "compiled code that's not actually running", but I've almost >never hand to use that. What is the basis for supposing it is less applicable for code that IS running? Why would you find a lujvo which only refers to running software somehow more useful than one more closely approximating the English term "application", which remains itself even when not being run? From the perspective of a user, software is noun-like. Is it only verb-like to a computer programmer thinking procedurally. -- Which of the two millionaire Yale Bonesmen do you support? If you believe in an aggressive foreign policy, vote for the one who avoided combat service. If you're against military adventurism, then vote for the man who is proud of his service in an imperialist war.