Re: brain fart metaphor

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> >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 tanru.

First, this is pragmatics, not semantics. Second, I'd contend that if
a sumti of a tertanru [by which I mean the final brivla in the tanru;
it's not clear from my giuste definition how x2 and x3 differ] is left
empty then it needn't be relevant.

> >> 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.

Think of the difference between the rules of chess and the conventions
of play (both in the sense of favoured strategies, and rules about not
distracting one's opponent, etc.). The rules of chess are the analogue
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.

Are you sure? I thought {pea} marked figurative usage. Either way, what
are the standard place structure rules?

> 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.

{zio} is not metalinguistic. It in effect derives new lexemes. It yields
a "literal" meaning.

> >> 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.

I'm invoking the standard english definition. You are either inventing
some ad hoc definition, or you are using a standard loglan jargon
definition. It's far more helpful to use lojban terms like tanru, with
a presumption that x5 is loe jbobau.

   tanru  tau  phrase compound  x1 is a binary metaphor formed with
     words/concepts x2 and x3, giving meaning x4 in language x5

It would be even more helpful to eradicate the words/concepts ambiguity
and use {tauvla} and {taurselvla}.

> >> 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
> >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.

The giuste makes it look like {stidi} means "propose". Maybe you think
it has a broader meaning "bring to the attention of", "bring into
consideration"? If so, then: {seltiismu}, {seltiisni}, {sidselvla}

> 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.

{nibpei} x1=p1 concludes that x2=n1 entails x3=n2 under logic x4=n3
         x1 infers from x2 inference x3 by method x4

coo, mie and