Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Archive location.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:05:54 EDT

In a message dated 9/9/2002 6:55:22 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> 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.