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

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:53:38 -0700

On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 02:41:11PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> pc wrote that:
> 
> "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...."
> 
> This was discussing balcukta, not ralcku. I daresay the same ideas
> hold across the pair. According to you, this lujvo is far beyond the
> bounds of reason, but according to "tradition", it hardly is.

I don't particularily find 'tradition' relevant in this case, but can I
get some examples?

> However, I think the question of what a cukta is and is not, and
> whether a webpage/website/whole web qualifies as one, is more
> interesting and more specifically germane than the general issue of
> acceptable lujvo, which in any case is overridden by usage, making the
> general trends irrelevant for any specific case.

<sigh>

OK. I don't have any serious arguments that the web qualifies as a
cukta. I still think ralcku is a bad lujvo. If you're not interested
in stating your opinion on whether a lujvo needs to be meaningful or
not, then I guess I can't force you to do so, but I would like to point
out that you know where to find English.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/