Re: sarji

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

This is an interesting point; I've wondered the same about other Lojban
predicates.  I would argue that _sarji_ in this context should not be
marked as a metaphor.  Support means different things depending on what
is supported.  Supporting the Republican party is different from
supporting the Sears Tower.  One approach would be to have different
predicates for the different meanings of support, but this would be
unwieldy for some concepts.  Supporting the Republican party suggests
some da is keeping the GOP going by some de.  (words, cash, etc.)
Supporting the Sears Tower suggests that some da is keeping the building
erect by some de (structural rigidity, tension member, etc.)  Even
though the details of support are different in each case, the concept of
support is analogous enough to be fairly clear.  Undoubtedly idiom plays
a role; a commonly used sequence of predicates will acquire its own
meaning independent of the "logical" sum of the meanings of the
component parts of the idiom.  I would argue that metaphor marking
should be reserved for those instances where something other than the
concrete combination of predicates is intended.

But.

One advantage of Lojban might be to avoid always going down the same
semantic path in language.  So I could see how it might be argued that
metaphors SHOULD be used for conceptual support but not for actual
physical support.  Both marking or not marking are syntactically
correct:  as with many usage issues, inevitably-- the speakers shall
decide.

-Steven

Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413