[lojban-beginners] Re: "technology"

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 8/17/07, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> rutni (or lo rutni) is rather physical, an object that has
> already got its material existence and thus can be physically touched.

I wouldn't say rutni is restricted to physical objects, I think events
can be artificial too. But I would agree it is not equivalent to the main
sense of "technology".

> On the other hand "technology" is an intermediary mode or channel of
> knowledge through which an idea is materialized into some particularly
> intended concrete form.  I think of "technology" as a systematized set
> of principles of "technique" (that's why there is this "-logy" suffix,
> isn't it?). It is "technology" through which lo rutni comes into
> being. A television, as an artifact, as lo rutni, is not by itself
> "technology". A television is a thing which comes into being *through*
> "technology".

Sometimes though the word "technology" is used to refer to the
products of technology. That's a kind of metonymy I suppose.
"A piece of technology" is a common way of referring to such things.

"Technology" as a body of knowledge would have to be a saske.
For example in "they had the technology required to build a ship" we
are obviously not talking about a material object, nor even about an
artificial event, but about a body of knowledge. I'm not sure how
{larcu} would fit there though, I don't think I really understand the
definition of {larcu}. What's the difference between the x1 and the
x2 of {larcu}?

If technology is a saske, as most/all "-logies" are, then perhaps
it's a {saske be fi lo nu certu} as opposed to a {saske be fi lo nu
cipra}, as are the sciences based on experiment.

So how about {creske}? (After all, "technos" is Greek for "skill".)

mu'o mi'e xorxes