From mark@kli.org Mon Sep 04 18:24:42 2000 Return-Path: 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: (message from Invent Yourself on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 14:56:57 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: [lojban] samselpla vs. samjva References: From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >From: Invent Yourself >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