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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:07:33 EDT

In a message dated 9/12/2002 7:08:14 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> To me, a `work' is what is `put together', to be offered to the
> public. An editor puts a `work' together, perhaps with guidance from
> tradition (such as the guidance that specifies which parts of the
> corpus constitute the Bible in a particular religious tradition
<snip>
(I know ... or at least, I can guess ... that you are going to remind
me that that which constitutes an instance of a veridical `dog' may be
of a `two headed dog'. But such a step takes us beyond the basic
notion of `dog' into the cognitive linguistic territory that Lakoff
discusses, such as `exemplar definitions' and `prototype definitions'.
Lakoff's ideas are far beyond the current issue.)

It seems to me that Lakoff is precisely what is relevant here; we are working 
off various exemplars (variously interpreted, as Mad Ludwig would add) and 
thus reaching different generalizations. For example. I see the Bible as a 
heterogenous 
pile of document, you see it as something gathered and put foreward by 
someone(s) for a purpose. So, we diverge sharply when we extend the notion 
into undecided territory. We could each, I suspect, come up with an example 
book that the other would not take as a book -- and certainly not as an 
exemplary one (I assume this is the point of the two-headed dog). 
But, again, my point is not that {cukta} does cover the net or a library or a 
heap of paer in various wastebaskets, but only that claiming that it does is 
not unfaithful to family that the word is pointing to. Bastards are kin, 
too, though we may not like it and we may delimit the family to exclude them. 
Still, considering them was not insane -- and certainly not unlojbanic.