From mark@kli.org Mon Sep 04 18:24:42 2000
Return-Path: <mark@kli.org>
Received: (qmail 476 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 01:24:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 01:24:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (209.191.39.185) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 01:24:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 15213 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Sep 2000 01:19:52 -0000
Date: 5 Sep 2000 01:19:51 -0000
Message-ID: <20000905011951.15212.qmail@pi.meson.org>
To: lojban@egroups.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.NEB.4.21.0009021456060.6776-100000@erika.sixgirls.org> (message from Invent Yourself on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 14:56:57 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: [lojban] samselpla vs. samjva
References: <Pine.NEB.4.21.0009021456060.6776-100000@erika.sixgirls.org>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>

>From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>
>Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 14:56:57 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Taral wrote:
>
>> Since lujvo aren't standardized, I'd like to suggest a change from
>> "samselpla" to "samjva". I tend to view "samselpla" (computer type-of
>> plan) as "computer architecture", whereas "samjva" (computer type-of
>> rule(s)) really echoes my idea of what a "computer program" is.
>> 
>> Comments?
>
>Did you read my recent mention of the term "mucti minji" for computer
>program?

It's brilliant, if a bit overly poetic, and makes me think more of a
virtual machine (like a JVM or something). Which is a useful concept too.

~mark