[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: brain fart metaphor

>> >Metaphor belongs to the extralinguistic domain of pragmatics. The
>> >grammar can (by definition) specify only what is intralinguistic.
>> >> My position, though, is that tanru are already metaphors, and don't,
>> >> therefore, require {pe'a} markers.
>> >Nothing requires {pea} markers.
>> Whaddaya mean "nothing"?
>> The place structure of a "broda brode" tanru is that of brode, with all
>> the places of broda implied using be/bei.
>Correct. But the nature of the relationship between these places becomes
>vague. Take the recently cited {rokci cinfo} - there is still an x2,
>but whatever fills this x2 needn't be in relationship "species of" to
>what fills x1; instead, they could be in relationship "in same universe
>as", or something equally uninformative and general.

I think that it would have to be "relevant" especially if the sumti value
is filled in, or the speaker is being particularly ibtuse in using that

I don't know the recently cited rokci cinfo but I would presume that
the sumti must pertain to some conceivable categorization of lions or
rock-lines (not necessarily Linnean). Otherwise, use pe'a.

>> If you wish any place structure OTHER than this, you need pe'a (you may
>> be able to use zi'o for some simple place deletions, of course, though I
>> might still mark it with pe'a).
>This has nothing to do with {pea}. If it is indeed possible to change
>the place structure (other than by zio) please tell me where in the
>refgrammar this is stated; I do not think it is possible. {pea} is a
>*****METALINGUISTIC***** indicator of figurativeness.

And hence a metalinguistic indicator that the standard rules of tanru
interpretation may not apply, including (and in the case of tanru
*especially*) the rules of place structure preservation.  I thgink that
is what "figurativeness" means.

>> If you use a "pe'a te kafke" then you should have a "pe'a" either on the
>> kafke, or on a marker for the x3 place (more wordy, though).
>No. For reasons I have explained, it is not the business of any language
>design to say "you should have a {pea}". Maybe a manual of good usage
>could recommend it; but that's something that even I think should wait
>until a really active and proficient body of users comes into being.

The language has a prescription, and we can put into that prescription
whatever rules we want.  The boundary between a rule of grammar and one
of usage seems to me a fine one indeed, unless you talk only of the
formal machine grammar as being the rules of grammar.  In Lojban,
it is a rule defining the word pe'a that it renders the standard
place struture rules inoperative in an unpredictable way.  Just as
it remains a rule that lujvo-making does (dikyjvo notwithstanding).
Just as it is a rule that zi'o makes a particular change to the place structure.

>> tanru are a specific TYPE of metaphor - a "binary metaphor" having a
>> specific meaning.
>I'm not sure that tanru really are metaphors. Metaphors involve
>*resemblance* between signans/vehicle and signatum/tenor. Tanru
>don't necessarily. Furthermore, it is rather tricky to say what
>the vehicle of a tanru (i.e. what one might loosely and improperly
>call "the literal meaning") really is.

You are involking one definiotion of a metaphor; I am invoking another.
Most people seem to understand what we mean when we use the word.

>> If you want a more generic word for metaphor, you need to define
>> the word first. Is it any figurative expression? Is it an expression
>> that suggests connotations?  Is it a cultural or literary reference?
>> All of these can be definitions of metaphor in English, but which do
>> you want to express in Lojban?
>One realizes of course that the first step to lujvo making is to
>choose the appropriate ingredients. But sometimes that is very difficult.
>How about (i) figurative expression, (ii) sign based on resemblance
>{smisni}, (iii) figurative expression based on resemblance. What is
>"figurative expression"? Something not "asserted" but said only as
>the basis for some other idea to be inferred? "unasserted basis for
>inference"? What's the lujvo for "infer"?

(i)  I could do worse than "pixryselcusku", but I would go for
a conversion of suggest-word(s) or suggest-meaning

(ii) well you came up with a lujvo, didn'tyou?>


infer:  well it is bulit into logji,a nd hence by implication into nibli
 but I never can keep straight infer vs. imply as to what direction is
intended, so I won't go beyond that.

>That's not "suggest" in the sense of {stidi}.

Why not?  A word eing spoken is an event that can inspire a particular
idea x2 the intended meaning.