From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Sep 10 13:14:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 20:14:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 90120 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 20:14:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 20:14:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 20:14:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17orOs-000705-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:14:18 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17orOF-0006zn-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:13:39 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17orO9-0006ze-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:13:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:13:33 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Message-ID: <20020910201333.GK6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <28.2c57e488.2aafa385@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <28.2c57e488.2aafa385@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1039 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:35:33PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/10/2002 12:54:20 PM Central Daylight Time, > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > > << > > > > ralcku could be a library. > > > > > > Are you saying that a library is one cukta? You've given me the > > > argument right here. > > > > See above. Try to stay with me. > >> > This remark is dangerously close to undercutting the later claim not to have > been personally insulting. I can see no evidence here that suggest xod has > not been following the argument up to the point that this irrelevancy appears > out of clear blue sky. If you had included the part that I underlined, it would make more sense. I had already specifically stated that I was granting that point for the sake of argument. > << > > > 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. > > > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? > > It's also contains http://www.thehun.net/, which most people would not > consider the most important book. > >> > > So, the rest was meant to be commentary on the sentence, which means > "The books that people would think are most important would fill a > library" or some such. Not the most natural reading (or the second or > third) but possible. I think the rhetorical question is again close > to personally insulting -- close enought to declare a flame war surely > (given that I get called a troll for far less and better justified). Granted. I have already apologized to xod off-list. > << > Ummm, the actual concept of the web is about sharing educational > resources between universities. 8) > >> > I like this move usually -- being totally literal to make your > opponent look foolish. It is not cooperative, of course, and, in this > case, just makes you look obtuse, so it probably fails (maybe it > always does, considering the trouble it has gotten me into). Note the smiley. The intention was irony. > << > The whole *point* of lujvo is that someone should be able to dissect > them and figure out what you mean. > > I will bet you *any* *amount* *of* *money* (and I mean that) that if > you ask 20 non-lojbanists what 'principal (as in most important) book' > means, with no other information, that no more than 1 or 2 will guess > the web. > >> > > That specification of "the whole of lujvo" would (and does) come as a > shock to long-time lujvo makers. The whole point of lujvo is to cover > semantic space using the limited set of devices available. The > selection criteria for lujvo have never been restricted to those that > a person can unpack out of context and from the elements alone (note > the ambiguity of the underlying tanru for one thing, as well as the > mass of metaphorical lujvo of yore). I would like examples of these 'metaphorical lujvo of yore' that actually got used in conversation, or in *original* lojbanic works. If said lujvo wasn't used in either of those cases, I really don't care about it in the slightest, to be honest. > A good lujvo is generally -- and loosely speaking -- one that is seen > as apt when it is understood, which need not be when it is first heard > or even when it is first analysed in the absence of understanding. In your opinion. I stridently disagree. > So your proposed test is irrelevant. In your opinion. I stridently disagree. > << > If a lujvo can't pass such a basic test of sanity, dammit, it's a > *shitty* lujvo! > >> > This seems a rather severe judgment on something like ninety percent > of the inherited Lojban vocabulary. Again, examples. Examples that actually got used in conversation, preferrably, and were understood. -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/