From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Aug 18 01:51:02 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 87378 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 08:50:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Aug 2004 08:50:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 08:50:59 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1BxM9p-0002sT-2g for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:50:57 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BxM97-0002rx-Rq; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:50:13 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fysh.org ([83.170.75.51] helo=bowl.fysh.org ident=mail) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1BxM8v-0002rW-Es for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:50:01 -0700 Received: from zefram by bowl.fysh.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BxM8e-0007XK-00 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:49:44 +0100 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:49:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20040818084944.GB24841@fysh.org> References: <20040817235553.GZ3538@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040817235553.GZ3538@chain.digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-archive-position: 8481 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: zefram@fysh.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Zefram From: Zefram Reply-To: zefram@fysh.org Subject: [lojban] Re: samselpli ? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22900 Robin Lee Powell wrote: >What do people think of samselpli ? "computer tool"... "x1 is a piece of software used by x2 for purpose x3". Does this apply only when the software is being actively used? Actually, I wonder this more generally about "pilno". It looks to me like "samselpli" describes the act of using a computer program, from the user's perspective. "la vi,ais samselpli mi lenu finti dei". By analogy with tools in general, I think "samtci" ("x1 is a piece of software used for doing x2") is the right lujvo to describe what I'd call a "program" or "application". This is in the sense of a piece of software viewed from a user's perspective, with continuous existence regardless of particular invocations of the tool. "la vi,ais samtci lenu galfi loi lerfu datnyvei". >>From the programmer's perspective, lujvo based on "platu" are more appropriate. -zefram