From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 11 15:21:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 22:21:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 70375 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 22:21:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 22:21:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m04.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.7) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 22:21:25 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.32.2cdbd283 (18707) for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32.2cdbd283.2ab11bde@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:21:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_32.2cdbd283.2ab11bde_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_32.2cdbd283.2ab11bde_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 4:09:25 PM Central Daylight Time, bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM writes: << > * book (container of a copy of a work, possibly multiple volumes), > x1 is a book containing work x2 by author x3 for audience x4 > preserved in medium x5 > /:/ [x1 is a manifestation/container [a physical object or its > analogue] of a work/content, not necessarily using paper (= > selpapri)] > /:/ > /=/ cukta (cku) > > Has it changed? >> No. I suspect that the problem is now whether the net is an analog of a physical object -- although it just is a physicval object after all. The question of "author" has been settled in the negative, for the Encyclopedia Brittanica and The Norton Anthology of English Literature are both clearly cukta but without a single author or even a collabration of authors (and if you weasel on that, there is always the Bible, THE book in its own estimation). Clearly there is no sensible restriction involved in the notion "work" either. And medium and audience present less problem for the web than they do for all sorts of paradgm books. This is not a recommendation for using {ralcukta) for the web (the {ral} part is problematic if nothing else), just pointing out that most of the claims that it is a lunatic -- or unlojbanic -- suggestion are misguided even among the most literal-minded. And, as Lojbab points out, there are many other possibilites that work as well (and as poorly) but stress other aspects of the web. We once had in some LoCCan or other a motto about letting the thousand flowers bloom (must have been Loglan, since someone in authority started chopping the buds early on) with reference to (among other things) lujvo. Time to set it up again, being now Maoless. --part1_32.2cdbd283.2ab11bde_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 4:09:25 PM Central Daylight Time, bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM writes:
<<

    * book (container of a copy of a work, possibly multiple volumes),
        x1 is a book containing work x2 by author x3 for audience x4
        preserved in medium x5
        /:/ [x1 is a manifestation/container [a physical object or its
        analogue] of a work/content, not necessarily using paper (=
        selpapri)]
        /:/
        /=/ cukta (cku)

Has it changed?

>>
No. I suspect that the problem is now whether the net is an analog of a physical object -- although it just is a physicval object after all. The question of "author" has been settled in the negative, for the Encyclopedia Brittanica and The Norton Anthology of English Literature are both clearly cukta but without a single author or even a collabration of authors (and if you weasel on that, there is always the Bible, THE book in its own estimation). Clearly there is no sensible restriction involved in the notion "work" either. And medium and audience present less problem for the web than they do for all sorts of paradgm books.

This is not a recommendation for using {ralcukta) for the web (the {ral} part is problematic if nothing else), just pointing out that most of the claims that it is a lunatic -- or unlojbanic -- suggestion are misguided even among the most literal-minded. And, as Lojbab points out, there are many other possibilites that work as well (and as poorly) but stress other aspects of the web. We once had in some LoCCan or other a motto about letting the thousand flowers bloom (must have been Loglan, since someone in authority started chopping the buds early on) with reference to (among other things) lujvo. Time to set it up again, being now Maoless. --part1_32.2cdbd283.2ab11bde_boundary--