age

[Remo Dentato]

I was trying to say "the 'I Ching' is a book more than 5000 years old".

The first problem I encountered is {cukta}. When we say {cukta} are we
thinking about a physical instance of a book (with its pages,
hardcover etc) or the concept is general enough to include the
abstract concept of "books"?

Then I started thinking about "age". We have a "by standard" place for
"young" and "old" which I think it's not to be used to express the
age. Then we have an experimental gismu {laldo} whose gloss suggests
it's just a word for "old" to avoid considering "old" as just the
opposite of "young".

That said I'm still uncertain on how to express something/someone age ...

Suggestions?

remod

[Jonathan Jones]

I would suggest {lonu la'oi.I Ching. zasti cu nanca li ji'imuki'o}.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

Or actually {li za'umuki'o}. My original was ~5,000, not >5,000.

[gleki]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:10:18 PM UTC+4, remod wrote:

I was trying to say "the 'I Ching' is a book more than 5000 years old".

The first problem I encountered is {cukta}. When we say {cukta} are we
thinking about a physical instance of a book (with its pages,
hardcover etc) or the concept is general enough to include the
abstract concept of "books"?

I'm for perceiving cukta as an abstract concept. The definition doesn't mention "paper" or any other medium.

Not for papri, unfortunately.

Wikipedia pages are called ckupau which is fine for me.

[iesk]

remod:

>The first problem I encountered is {cukta}. When we say {cukta} are
>we thinking about a physical instance of a book (with its pages, hardcover
>etc) or the concept is general enough to include the abstract concept of
>"books"?

Is it {le se cukta} that is more than 5,000 years old?

-iesk

[rden...@gmail.com]

Il giorno , iesk <pa....@gmx.de> ha scritto:

> Is it {le se cukta} that is more than 5,000 years old?

In this specific case we don't know exactly who wrote it, most probably many people added text along the years. Scholars believe that the present form stabillized around 5000 years ago.

But I see what you mean:
{cukta} -> the book as physical object
{selcku} -> the book as content

right?

So it's the {selcku} that is 5000 years old, not the {cukta}, which I bought few years ago.

remod

[iesk]

remod:

>In this specific case we don't know exactly who wrote it, most
>probably many people added text along the years. Scholars
>believe that the present form stabillized around 5000 years ago.

.i ja'ooo tu'a lo selcku tarmi cu nanca li muki'o .i .ua mela sorites. nabmi vau xu zo'o

mu'o mi'e .iesk.

[iesk]

remod:
>right?

Yes.

mi nelci loi cukta
.i mi nelci loi selcku
.i mi nelci lonu mi tcidu filo cukta
.i mi nelci lonu mi tcidu lo selcku

That is how I think those words are to be used. I hope that is correct. I have seen people say 'tcidu lo cukta', but that seems strange to me.

iesk

ps: I also hope this post gets where it belongs. Google Groups has a new interface, and it is terrible.

[Jacob Errington]

{tcidu lo cukta} is definitely weird, but is cutka2 text? Or is it
more like bangu3: a si'o/du'u of some kind? I'd personally opt for the
second, because we can say what the book is *about* rather than
*exactly what it contains as text*.

{lo cukta be lo du'u lo nu jamna cu mokau} "A book about war"
and
{mi tcidu lu .i xlali lo se gugde li'u lo cukta be lo du'u lo nu jamna cu mokau}

iepei

mu'o mi'e la tsani

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/0UE8xxcHzSgJ.

[iesk]

On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:14:13 AM UTC+2, tsani wrote:

{tcidu lo cukta} is definitely weird, but is cutka2 text? Or is it
more like bangu3: a si'o/du'u of some kind? I'd personally opt for the
second, because we can say what the book is *about* rather than
*exactly what it contains as text*.

I like that.
 

{lo cukta be lo du'u lo nu jamna cu mokau} "A book about war"
and
{mi tcidu lu .i xlali lo se gugde li'u lo cukta be lo du'u lo nu jamna cu mokau}

iepei

.ie

So, if I take {tcidu} to have a written text (letter arrangement) as its x2, and the x2 of {cukta} as not the written text but the contents, then combining {tcidu} and {cukta} is somewhat verbose, and my tendency to combine them is perhaps just natlang-biased. Perhaps, from a Lojban perspective, it comes more naturally to say eg {mencti lo se cukta} rather than {tcidu}?

I'm still confused though. I think the English word 'text' can somehow refer to both the arrangement of words/letters and its meaning. *sigh* I should learn Lojban well enough to completely ignore the English glosses.

iesk

PS: Probably not representative, but: http://lojban.lilyx.net/jufsisku/?q=tcidu ...