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

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:55:49 -0500

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:09:04PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > On a parallel note, it's interesting that the people who were around
> > > when the notion of lujvo was being developed have a quite different
> > > understanding of the intent behind lujvo than those who came much
> > > later in the game. Poor communication?
> >
> > Has anyone besides PC who was around then spoken up on this point?
> 
> Rosta (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/15531) and Lojbab's
> recent post (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/15584) where it
> turns out that a good half of the old lujvo are not literal at all.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding; but xod wasn't your claim that this
usage of cukta isn't even metaphorical at all (and do you still stand
by that after lojbab's eariler post)?

That said, CLL seemed to me when I read it to be very much in favor
of lujvo which are literally-devised in a predictable fashion (but
allowing for removing pieces of the source tanru to shorten them).
Pre-CLL lojban had plenty of problems (literal lujvo aside), so I
don't think the implied argument of "it's always been this way, so
it's the right way" makes any sense whatsoever (especially if you're
reaching back to the Dark Ages (loglan days) of the language).

-- 
Jordan DeLong
[email-masked]