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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:21:18 EDT

In a message dated 9/11/2002 4:09:25 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.