Re: TECH: pe'a/po'a proposal

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

Lojbab writes about figurative speech:
> While technically permitted by the lack of an official policy forbidding
> it, I consider even lujvo that are that 'poetic' to be "mabla"
> (derogative) unles marked, and proposed the rafsi for "pe'a" as part of
> the current change proposal as an answer.

To my mind, the major technical problem standing in the way of dikyjvo /
diktanru is how to handle the essential category of poetic metaphor.
I support this change (as extended subsequently in the posting) which
would remove that obstacle.

> However, further thought, and the discussion with Nora, suggests that
> the status quo would suffice, given John's description, with only a
> small broadening of the use of "po'a".  If Nora's basic contention is
> true, and Frank's second category is really not truly independent, then
> the whole of metaphor can be viewed as a continuum from restriction to
> (poetic) expansion.  Examples that Frank or others might place in the
> 2nd category might be considered as being on the midpoint of that scale.

I agree with this idea of variable degrees of figurativeness.

On the idea that unmarked tanru will henceforth represent restrictions:
We should remember that there's more than one kind of restriction.

1.  poi:  le cmalu mlatu = le mlatu poi cmalu   (the small cat)

2.  be:   lo salta tanxe = lo tanxe be lo salta (a salad box, a box of salad)

3.  belenu: citka bapli = bapli be fi le nu (X) citka   (force feed)

4.  parallel: nenri klama = x1 goes to x2 and x1 [starts out? ends up?]
                        inside of x2

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