Re: brain fart metaphor

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> >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.

Because by definition all unspecified places have a "zo'e" value (relevant
to the truth value of the bridi, but not relevant, or obvious to the current
discussants), the x2 has semantic relevance.  It may be modified by the
presence of the modifier side of the tanru, but that should not change its
essnetial character - i.e. a category/species is still a category/species.
Ther emay still be asemantic hole here big enough to drive a Space Shuttle
through, but there is still a considerable amount of content.

The x2 of tanru is the "left half" that modifes the "right half".  A multipart
tanru may be successfully be broken down into left-right modifier-modificand
pairs.  The x3 is the right half. corrsponding to a given x2 left half.

>> 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.

But the boundary is somewhat nebulous - I think the rule about touching
your piece requiring it be moved, absent a French expression, is
part of the rules of chess.  Is that rule "grammar" or convention.
I was always taught it as a rule.

>> 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.

And that is how we define figurative usage - that the place structures
cannot be assumed to be taken literally (they MAY be valid, but one cannot
assume that).

>Either way, what
>are the standard place structure rules?

Trailing places are the places of the final term (and hence I think
derivationally the final brivla) of the tanru.  Terms prior to the selbri
are a little less clear.  Not sure what Cowan has said, but I think at one
point we assumed that they were places of some amalgamated meaning
not unlike what you have been arguing for.  The refgrammar is the
authority here, subject to final review.

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

zi'o is defined as a metalinguistic device.  I cannot argue about its effect
since it is in the language over my vehement objection %^)  It yields a bridi
with a "literal" meaning but I cannot envision anything other than a
figurative meaning to, say "mamta be zi'o".

>> 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.

Yes, I am.  That is why we use "tanru" istead of "metaphor" like JCB did.
Everyone misunderstood his jargon usage.  we use the more
jargony "binary metaphor" when we refer to metaphors at all, with a
modifier-modificand pairing.  The keyword wor tanru is I think the even more
jargony "open-compound" or "phrase compound".
>It would be even more helpful to eradicate the words/concepts ambiguity
>and use {tauvla} and {taurselvla}.

x1 is the words; x4 as the meaning is a concept.

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

The gismu list definition has two parts, one with an agenctive x1, the other
with an event x1 which uses the word "inspire" as the verb.

lojbab