From eks2@york.ac.uk Mon Feb 11 02:12:52 2002
Return-Path: <eks2@york.ac.uk>
X-Sender: eks2@york.ac.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 10:12:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 12262 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 10:12:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167)
  by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 10:12:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n31.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.81)
  by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 10:12:52 -0000
Received: from [216.115.96.88] by n31.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Feb 2002 10:12:52 -0000
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:12:50 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: le ninmu cukta
Message-ID: <a485f2+8v0h@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFAEPLCFAA.raganok@intrex.net>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1127
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "sklyanin" <eks2@york.ac.uk>
X-Originating-IP: 144.32.128.133
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=71790832
X-Yahoo-Profile: sklyanin

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.