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

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:37:03 -0400 (EDT)

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