<<
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 | |
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.