A fairy tale

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!shoulson>]

>Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:01:54 GMT
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad%COGSCI.EDINBURGH.AC.UK@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
>>  From: cowan%snark.thyrsus.com%cbmvax@net.UU.uunet (John Cowan)
>>  Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 14:39:40 EST

>>  I don't have a problem with this lujvo [sc. `shoe nose'] <...>

>Yes, I reckon I was wrong about it being a bad tanru.  After all,
>there is no reason to be sure that all animals use their noses for
>both breathing and olfaction.

True; there are reasonable features to look for (table "legs" function as
such in that they support, though not for transport, etc...)

>Do Lojban needles have eyes (as in English), ears (as in Slavic), or
>mouths or whatever else they may have in other languages?

Er.  Good question.  I'd use "hole" or something less metaphoric.  In
English, a pitcher has a handle, based on "hand", but other languages (and
even English sometimes) gives it an "ear"...

>>  Likewise, it causes no problem to say that a clock has hands and a face.

>I wouldn't be so sure about that.  If I didn't know English, I might
>have serious trouble locating the hands of a clock.

Also a good point.  You have to be careful with these, and I don't know
how.  On the whole, using these "body-part" words figuratively seems useful
and productive, but there are always these confusing ones.

>>  Bob has proposed "river-anus" for what in English is called a river mouth.

>Why not `river penis' or `river vulva'?  (The output is liquid.)

"anus" works better, to my mind.  The output is sort of directly through
channels from source, as the anus is the terminus of the alimentary canal.
Hmmm.  Urinary tract also has a source....  Bleah...

>Ivan

~mark