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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:32:43 EDT

In a message dated 9/10/2002 5:02:45 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> Given the limited history of actual conversational usage of lojban, I
> don't agree. Come to the IRC channel some time, where actual
> conversations occur in lojban in real time. You won't see many lujvo,
> I'll tell you that right now.
>>
And this is relevant to the issue of good lujvo exactly how? If there aren't 
many, then the test has not been applied much -- and people have not 
developed much skill in forming them on the fly. Point?

<<
I'm not sure I have a good answer to that, beyond the fact that I don't
see even a "blanu zdani" == "I had a dog that once got covered in blue
paint when I lived in that house" type of connection between "ralju
cukta" and "the world wide web".
Oh, by this time, with all the discussion, {ralju cukta} is a lot closer to 
"the Web" than any of those remote kind of {blanu zdani} cases except "a 
house colored blue." This does not mean that there may not be insurmountable 
arguments against this usage, but it is no longer a stretch. By the way, it 
is this retrospective plausibility that makes good lujvo -- once you get it, 
it feels right.