[lojban] Re: only one lujvo per concept?

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:08:56AM -0400, xod wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 11:38:43AM -0400, xod wrote:
> >
> >>The breadth of a lujvo is whatever we say it is.
> >>
> >>How does mucti minji cover algorithms more than skami selplatu, or
> >>skami pruce? 
> >
> >An algorithm has nothing to do with computers, for one thing.
> 
> 
> I don't understand this response.
> 
> You complained that " mutmi'i is also used, but I don't like it very
> much (too broad; applies to algorithms as well as code)."
> 
> And I said "The breadth of a lujvo is whatever we say it is. How does
> mucti minji cover algorithms more than skami selplatu, or skami pruce?
> An algorithm is a process; that appears as a keyword in platu, pruce,
> but not in minji."

Because both of those have 'skami' in them, and algorithms have nothing
to do with skami.

> >>If you were not a computer geek, why would you think of an
> >>application as a "plan/arrangement/plot/[schematic]" or any sort of
> >>process?
> >
> >Code, and a running program respectively.  mutmi'i is the best I'm
> >aware of for "compiled code that's not actually running", but I've
> >almost never hand to use that.
> 
> What is the basis for supposing it is less applicable for code that IS
> running?

I prefer more specific terms.  samru'e is more specific.

> Why would you find a lujvo which only refers to running software
> somehow more useful than one more closely approximating the English
> term "application", which remains itself even when not being run? 

I prefer more specific terms.

Boy, am I getting sick of having this same tired old argument for the,
what, sixth time?

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"