Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.)

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:21:13PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > >From http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?ralcku
> >
> >
> >    1.  maldzena reservations about the virtuality of a cukta can be
> >    overcome by considering the modern meaning of the term "document",
> >    and considering a cukta as a collection of documents.
> >
> >    2. The gismu definition does not refer to the cohesiveness often
> >    considered necessary for "books".
>
> Even granting these, and the rest of the stuff on that page, ralcku is a
> crappy lujvo for the web because it's just not specific enough.
>
> ralcku could be a library.



Are you saying that a library is one cukta? You've given me the argument
right here.



> Almost a third of the world would probably assume that ralcku was the
> Bible (that's the most important book, right?).
>
> Another quarter would assume it was the Koran.



It contains the Bible and Koran. That makes it just as, if not more ralju.



> I mean, *come* *on*.  It means 'most important book'.  Not only is that
> ridiculously ambigous *now*, it's pretty much guarnteed to become
> obsoleted over time.


When the web is replaced by something else which is other than an
evolution of the same concept? (Still the web, but a difference in
implementation detail, etc)

Are you quite sure that all lujvo must guard against future events we can
*barely* comprehend? I don't think I need to dignify this with the
encouragement of a discussion.



-- 
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that
act of terrorism.  Why would that event change the situation?
                                                      -- Howard Zinn