cukta

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

The gi'uste says:

------------------

cukta     cku      book
x1 is a book about subject/theme/story x2 by author x3 for audience
x4 preserved in medium x5    1f 163
[this is a quantity of text, and not the physical object (= selpapri);
x2 may be a convention rather than a subject];
(cf. cfika, prina, prosa, tcidu)

-------------------


In the lessons, there are many examples that use {cukta} as a physical
object. For example:

lesson01: do cu darxi la suzn. le birka ku le cukta ku  (1.4-13)

lesson01: ta cu darxi le stedu ku le cukta ku (1.6-5)

(Different place structures for {darxi} here, also)

lesson08:  alis.:     mi cu lebna le bunre ku  .i le bunre ku cu cukta

lesson08:  alis.:     .u'u le cukta ku cu farlu
                      .i le cukta ku cu cnita le stizu ku

lesson08:  rik.:      le cukta ku cu jibni mi
                      .i mi cu cpacu le cukta ku le loldi ku

lesson12:  2: ko [cu] catlu  .i le cukta [ku] cu galtu

lesson12:  1: mi [cu] birti le nu mi [cu] punji le cukta [ku]
              le stizu [ku] [kei] [ku]

lesson17:  A: ko cpacu le xunre cukta le jubme

lesson18:  ko dunda le cukta le ninmu poi pritu la djan.

lesson19:  le verba cu bevri le cukta


And there are many others.

I agree with the lessons, rather than with the gi'uste (they are closer
to what 'usage' is, no?). If we want to insist that it is not a physical
object, then we should not use 'book' in the definition, no matter how
helpful it is as a keyword, because a book is in the first place a physical
object, and the more abstract meaning of 'work' ("obra" in Spanish, "verko"
in Esp-o), is, I think, secondary.

Are two copies of "War and Peace" that are preserved in different media
one {cukta}, or two {cukta}? If one, then the x5 place is wrong, if two,
then we are talking of the physical object.

As an aside, I also don't understand the comment that x2 may be a convention.

Jorge