Difference between revisions of "skadji"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
  
'''ralcku:''' a lujvo for the web?
+
[[jbocre: skanunydji|skanunydji]] is the later, 2001 version of this poem.
  
==== Is the web a "cukta"? ====
+
----
  
# maldzena reservations about the virtuality of a cukta can be overcome by considering the modern meaning of the term "document", and considering a cukta as a collection of documents.
+
Here is one of the poems called 'skadji' or 'Color-Desire'.
  
** I don't think this addresses either the virtuality of cukta or whether the web is a cukta.  Virtuality of cukta is clearly allowed in the ma'oste and never has been in debate (the word was specifically intended to be usable for ebooks). --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
<pre>
  
# The gismu definition does not refer to the cohesiveness often considered necessary for "books".
+
'''le rozgu .a lo zgike be sekai'''
  
** The gismu definition is "book". --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
The rose, or all music like it
  
# Is a "single website" a cukta? Can a cukta be in hypertext form and retain its status as a single cukta? Is a Wiki any sort of cukta? Beware of importing the malglico semantics of "book"!
+
'''leri kamyxunre ba lunra'''
  
** The semantics of book define what cukta is.  We have little else to go on.  Some websites may be books (such as the online copy of the refgram); most are not (especially all these modern flash-based ones, etc), and thus are not cukta.  However, this has nothing to do with whether the web as a whole is a book, and thus is beside the point. --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
in redness, will turn moonlike
  
# Different websites are often linked together, associatively and with the cohesion of meaning.
+
'''xarnu nundunra ri'a .ia'''
  
** They also often are not.  --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
stubborn winter because of, so I believe,
  
# The linking of different hypertext documents follows the same behavior as linking to other locations in the same file, or other files written by the same author and residing on the same server. Whereas there is a conceptual difference between flipping a page in a book, and closing its cover and opening a different book, there is no conceptual distinction between following a link to a different location in the same file, and visiting a different "website".
+
'''do .e ledo darno logji'''
  
** I disagree.  If I go to my browser's location box (or equivalent thereof) and manually input a url to some location, it is analogous to closing and opening a new cukta.  Furthermore, clicking on links which go to a different "website" aren't like turning pages at all; the only linkage which is similar to turning pages is the kind of linkage found in...online books!  (Such as the Next buttons and chapter listing in the online refgram).  It makes sense to assume that the definition of cukta was intended to include these, but not anything else.  (And I believe [[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]] indicated that such was the intent of the word on the [[jbocre: mailing list|mailing list]] by saying "ralcku" would be a [[jbocre: figurative lujvo|figurative lujvo]]) --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
you and the aloof logic of yours.
  
# Therefore the semantic distinction between different "websites" is not always conceptually clear. Hyperlinked documents can be considered the same document, albeit not the same ''file''. Authorship is the only difference between a single work, and a compiled, annotated work. However, a cukta can have multiple authors, and be created over time.
+
'''.icu'u le pu me do {ku}'''
  
** It may not always be clear, but that doesn't help your argument.  You need it to *never* be clear, and the truth is that it usually is.  -mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
As said by the you of past
** You discuss cukta as though its use is the sole complaint. Where is the justification for ralju? (Not that I'll agree with it, you just ought to be comprehensive)
 
  
Irrelevant, low-level discussion of hypertext protocols and TCP does not belong on this page.
+
'''ko fi mi ca cusku fe leiva'''
  
* This is not an argument, it is simply an unfair dismissal of an opposing viewpoint.  HTTP (== the web) is just a datni xelbe'i which we may desire to refer to by name (whether through a proper cmene, which I favor, or a fu'ivla or a lujvo), due to its popularity.  If HTTP isn't important to the web, then gopher, nntp, ftp, irc, and any other protocol for information transfer used on the internet (or even elsewhere!) must also define "webs" (and under your claims, books ([[jbocre: cukta|(cukta]]. --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
say now to me those
** ''It's not an "unfair dismissal" but an attempt to frame the limits of debate to exclude irrelevant tangents which seem relevant to those not paying attention, but in fact completely miss the essentials of the discussion. --xod''
 
  
*** Merely restating that you think it is irrelevant doesn't make it any less relevant.  Because HTTP defines "the web", it is certainly the heart of the issue:  Can a data transfer protocol (more specifically, can *this* data transfer protocol) be considered a cukta (book) in a non-figurative sense?  -- mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
'''smaji valsi noi mi ke'a'''
  
''This page grew out of a rather productive discussion between [[User:Mark Shoulson e|Mark Shoulson e]] and [[User:xod|xod]] on [[jbocre: IRC|IRC]] today.  To me, I still can't see considering the web as a whole to be '''cukta'''.  I ''can'' consider individual websites to be so, even dynamically generated ones (amazon.com is one big catalog, this wiki is an ever-changing manuscript, etc).  But to me, a book does require a certain amount of cohesiveness.  An encyclopedia may be a bunch of mostly unrelated articles, but they were bound together by someone for a particular reason, for the purpose of being one work.  Even if you consider the hyperlinking that goes on to bind things together that way (and I don't, see further), transitivity doesn't apply, at least not that far. Xod has a point that it is not always clear where one website ends and one begins, but on the other hand it ''usually'' is.  There is generally a fair concept of when you're leaving one website to go to another.  A single site isn't necessarily confined to a single domain (and vice-versa), but there is still a certain cohesiveness that's there, even given hyperlinks to the outside.  It seems to be related to being controlled by a single entity, but even that isn't entirely it.  I would say the web is more of a library than a book.  Xod disagrees, claiming that the hyperlinking makes it one large work, all annotating each other; clicking a hyperlink is as easy as turning a page in a book... and in the web, could take you anywhere.  I think that hyperlinking does not make it a single work, even the web were completely topologically connected (which it isn't).  Whew.  I'm not even saying half of what we covered; xod probably has a log.  --mi'e mark''
+
soft words, which I
  
You know, unrelated to its fitness or unfitness as a word for the WWW, ''ralcku'' would make a really excellent lujvo for the ''metaphorical'' sense of the word "bible" in English, as in "''The Art of Computer Programming'' is the bible of Computer Science" or "Yeah, that's really the best book there is on baking; it's my bible in the kitchen.''--mi'e [[User:Mark Shoulson|.mark.]]''
+
'''pujeca .iecai na natfe'''
  
* I would prefer ''vajraicku'' (with the expected [[jbocre: seljvajvo|seljvajvo]] place structure) if only because ''ralcku'' has already been permanently maimed by this whole www-is-a-book thing. --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
+
then and now - Oh yes - do not deny
 +
 
 +
'''na'emu'i rolei jitfycipra'''
 +
 
 +
in spite of all the proofs against...
 +
 
 +
</pre>
 +
 
 +
-----
 +
 
 +
Comments:
 +
 
 +
(Setting aside the concrete nature of Lojban and accepting the
 +
 
 +
unmarked figurative usage)
 +
 
 +
''le rozgu ba nundunra''      the rose will be an event-of-winter, the rose will turn winter
 +
 
 +
Took me a while to find an English expression for this. I rather
 +
 
 +
like this - and stating that all rosa music turns into winter...
 +
 
 +
I vacillated here between 'a' and 'all' but finally chose 'all'.
 +
 
 +
The original was missing the ''be''.
 +
 
 +
''kamyxunre'' replaced the obviously outdated rafsi ''kaz''
 +
 
 +
''lunra xarnu'' something moving with the inevitability of the Moon in its orbit
 +
 
 +
''.icu'u''  the original had ''.isecu'u''
 +
 
 +
''le pu me do {ku}''  the ''me'' was missing, ''ku'' is elidable
 +
 
 +
''na(bo) natfe ''    removed the unparseable {bo}
 +
 
 +
''na'e mu'i''      replaced the erroneous ''na'' with ''na'e''
 +
 
 +
The second verse is an example of a sentence where {fi/fe} seem to
 +
 
 +
be almost unavoidable. I might, however, consider
 +
 
 +
''caku tecu'u mi ko cusku leiva'' ...
 +
 
 +
{''ko fi mi ca cusku fe leiva''...}
 +
 
 +
as an alternative to avoid the mental juggling which distracts
 +
 
 +
the reader from the flow of the poem.
 +
 
 +
The structure ''cu'u le pu me do ko cusku...'' is quite clever and
 +
 
 +
nicely ambiguous. The past you and the imperative you are
 +
 
 +
speaking/ougth to speak simultaneously in a way very difficult
 +
 
 +
to convey satisfactorily in English.
 +
 
 +
veion
 +
 
 +
------------
 +
 
 +
The original by Michael Helsem from ''le pamai jbopemci cukta
 +
 
 +
ci'a la maiky'elsym''
 +
 
 +
<pre>
 +
 
 +
'''le ROZgu .A lo ZGIke SEkai'''
 +
 
 +
The rose,or a music with
 +
 
 +
'''LEri KAzyXUNre ba LUNra'''
 +
 
 +
its redness, will be lunar-
 +
 
 +
'''XARnu nunDUNra RI'a .IA'''
 +
 
 +
stubborn in its winterhood, because of (I believe)
 +
 
 +
'''DO .e LEdo DARno LOGji'''
 +
 
 +
you &amp; your distant logic.
 +
 
 +
'''.IseCU'u LE pu DO ku'''
 +
 
 +
As said by you before,
 +
 
 +
'''KO fi MI ca CUSku fe LEIva'''
 +
 
 +
again say to me those
 +
 
 +
'''SMAji VALsi NOI mi KE'a'''
 +
 
 +
soft words that i
 +
 
 +
'''puJEca .IEcai NAbo NATfe'''
 +
 
 +
then &amp; now--yes!--don't deny
 +
 
 +
'''naMU'i ROlei JITfyCIPra'''
 +
 
 +
in spite of all the disproofs...
 +
 
 +
</pre>

Revision as of 17:14, 4 November 2013

skanunydji is the later, 2001 version of this poem.


Here is one of the poems called 'skadji' or 'Color-Desire'.


'''le rozgu .a lo zgike be sekai'''

The rose, or all music like it

'''leri kamyxunre ba lunra'''

in redness, will turn moonlike

'''xarnu nundunra ri'a .ia'''

stubborn winter because of, so I believe,

'''do .e ledo darno logji'''

you and the aloof logic of yours.

'''.icu'u le pu me do {ku}'''

As said by the you of past

'''ko fi mi ca cusku fe leiva'''

say now to me those

'''smaji valsi noi mi ke'a'''

soft words, which I

'''pujeca .iecai na natfe'''

then and now - Oh yes - do not deny

'''na'emu'i rolei jitfycipra'''

in spite of all the proofs against...


Comments:

(Setting aside the concrete nature of Lojban and accepting the

unmarked figurative usage)

le rozgu ba nundunra the rose will be an event-of-winter, the rose will turn winter

Took me a while to find an English expression for this. I rather

like this - and stating that all rosa music turns into winter...

I vacillated here between 'a' and 'all' but finally chose 'all'.

The original was missing the be.

kamyxunre replaced the obviously outdated rafsi kaz

lunra xarnu something moving with the inevitability of the Moon in its orbit

.icu'u the original had .isecu'u

le pu me do {ku} the me was missing, ku is elidable

na(bo) natfe removed the unparseable {bo}

na'e mu'i replaced the erroneous na with na'e

The second verse is an example of a sentence where {fi/fe} seem to

be almost unavoidable. I might, however, consider

caku tecu'u mi ko cusku leiva ...

{ko fi mi ca cusku fe leiva...}

as an alternative to avoid the mental juggling which distracts

the reader from the flow of the poem.

The structure cu'u le pu me do ko cusku... is quite clever and

nicely ambiguous. The past you and the imperative you are

speaking/ougth to speak simultaneously in a way very difficult

to convey satisfactorily in English.

veion


The original by Michael Helsem from le pamai jbopemci cukta

ci'a la maiky'elsym


'''le ROZgu .A lo ZGIke SEkai'''

The rose,or a music with

'''LEri KAzyXUNre ba LUNra'''

its redness, will be lunar-

'''XARnu nunDUNra RI'a .IA'''

stubborn in its winterhood, because of (I believe)

'''DO .e LEdo DARno LOGji'''

you & your distant logic.

'''.IseCU'u LE pu DO ku'''

As said by you before,

'''KO fi MI ca CUSku fe LEIva'''

again say to me those

'''SMAji VALsi NOI mi KE'a'''

soft words that i

'''puJEca .IEcai NAbo NATfe'''

then & now--yes!--don't deny

'''naMU'i ROlei JITfyCIPra'''

in spite of all the disproofs...