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

From: Lee Daniel Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:10:57 -0500

> <<
> I will bet you *any* *amount* *of* *money* (and I mean that) that if you
> ask 20 non-lojbanists what 'principal (as in most important) book'
> means, with no other information, that no more than 1 or 2 will guess
> the web.
> If a lujvo can't pass such a basic test of sanity, dammit, it's a
> *shitty* lujvo!
> >>

> This seems a rather severe judgment on something like ninety percent of the 
> inherited Lojban vocabulary. I'm inclined to say that if it passes the test 
> easily (say 15 or the 20 get it), then it is a shitty lujvo.

I wouldn't call that a shitty lujvo, but I would call it an unnecessary
one. After all, if it can be correctly understood from its parts, then
it doesn't express anything more than its underlying tanru, and there's
therefore no need for the lujvo in the first place except phonetic
brevity, which doesn't feel like a very compelling reason to me for
creating a lujvo.

All that being said, I have to agree that "principal book" is a bad
basis for "web". I'd say something more like "universal information
store" or "principal information network" would be much better; that
gives us something like "raldatnyci'e" or "kaudatnysorcu" (assuming we
ignore the silly arbitrary restriction of "common" requiring a du'u).

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker <[email-masked]> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC