Re: TECH: grammar updates

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

> Date:          Tue, 30 Mar 1993 14:22:08 +1000
> From:  Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>

> ... And if we admit that not
> all concepts can be expressed with gismu and cmavo, and that some lujvo
> (like that of battery) can have their place structure arise ex nihilo...
> well, I'd worry. It may not be a disaster, but I think we've all been
> assuming the Gismu Deep Structure Hypothesis, we've all been assuming
> all lujvo can be paraphrased as tanru can be paraphrased (ta'unai) as
> gismu deep strcutures; an admission that they can't would greatly change
> our attitudes to lujvo making.

"I wandered lonely as a cloud..."  I think the essence of metaphor is
that the relation alleged is completely outside the official meaning
of the words involved, but not as random noise; the juxtaposition of
seemingly unrelated elements illuminates the main bridi relation so that
the listener can grasp what aspect or unexpected relation the speaker
is trying to express.

I also think that JCB believed that every tanru was and should be
interpreted as an actual metaphor -- the opposite of my "diktanru"
stance.  Paraphrasing lujvo -> tanru -> gismu deep structure is, to my
mind, very useful and quite vital to make lujvo work -- but it's also
important to leave a mechanism so people can say actual metaphors.
At present the tanru structure is officially designated as that
mechanism, following TLI Loglan.  My preference is to require a cmavo
along the lines of {bo} to join the elements of a true metaphor, while
the unmarked tanru is interpreted according to the Gismu Deep Structure
Hypothesis.

James F. Carter        Voice 310 825 2897       FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet;  6221 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA  90024-1555
Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu            BITNET: jimc%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT
UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc