From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Aug 18 12:21:17 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 34011 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 19:21:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Aug 2004 19:21:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 19:21:16 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1BxVzk-0004vH-Th for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:21:13 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BxVyk-0004tf-G2; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:20:10 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1BxVyZ-0004tC-2R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:19:59 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:19:59 -0700 Message-ID: <20040818191959.GG13226@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040817235553.GZ3538@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040818084944.GB24841@fysh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040818084944.GB24841@fysh.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-archive-position: 8489 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: samselpli ? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22908 On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:49:44AM +0100, Zefram wrote: > 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? Only if you say "ca samselpli" or similar. > 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". Point. > 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". Unfortunately, I think you're right. I sometimes forget the paucity of computer knowledge of the average user; if I found other things to put in a generalized lujvo for "program" (say, required operating system or processor, just to pool a couple of possible places out of my ganxo), the average user would literally have no idea how to fill them. samtci is probably best for a most-general "program" lujvo. I'll put samtci and sampli in jbvolaste, the latter for "computer user". > From the programmer's perspective, lujvo based on "platu" are more > appropriate. And sysadmins, like me, prefer samru'e. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"