Re: le ninmu cukta

["sklyanin" <eks2@york.ac.uk>]

coi kreig.
do cusku di'e

> >Same would be with the 1993 definition of {cukta} where x2 was 
> >a subject/theme/story. With the present (1994) definition where
> >x2 is the content the effect is lost, however.
> 
> Huh. I thought subject matter was a subset of content. I guess not.

Well, the 1993 definition of {cukta} says:

x1 is a book about subject/theme/story x2 by author x3 
for audience x4 preserved in medium x5 [this is a quantity of text, 
and not the physical object (=selpapri);
x2 maybe a convention rather then a subject]

whether the 1994 one postulates:

x1 is a book containing work x2 by author x3 for audience x4 
preserved in medium x5 
[x1 is a manifestation/container [a physical object or its analogue]
of a work/content, not necessarily using paper (=selpapri)];

What can x2 be here? My guess is a title or a description of the
content (my referring to x2 as "content" was inaccurate, I admit) . 
I doubt that we can put just {le ninmu} as x2, it should be rather 
{tu'a le ninmu} or {lisri be le ninmu}. After all,

ti cukta tu'a le ninmu le ninmu le ninmu

sounds not so bad.

co'o mi'e .evgenis.