Subject: Re: literalism [was: Re: [lojban] Re: looking at arjlujv.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:16:41 EDT

In a message dated 00-10-19 15:11:40 EDT, maikl! writes:

<< words that don't mean what they're supposed to mean. >>
Whence this "supposed"? That is literalism at its worst. Words we construct 
mean what we construct them to mean and *that* is what they are *supposed* to 
do. To be sure, when they are constructed out of pre-existing pieces, we 
have some obligation to leave a trail from the parts to the whole, but there 
is not obligation to make that path fit someone's a priori rules about how 
that path should run. The scenic route often has a lot to say for it over a 
route along the section lines. 

<<this distinction depends on 
having the longer, more accurate forms available for the same meanings.>>
Whoa! If it has the same meaning, how is it more accurate? Come to that, 
even if it doesn't have the same meaning, how is it more accurate? I suppose 
this means that having a short, snappy, intuitive way of saying something is 
OK, but only if we have a long form that corresponds strictly to a 
prerestricted set of rules also available to get to the same place. And, of 
course, we always do -- those kinds of tanru and lujvo are a dime-a-dozen and 
a machine (or a rough human equivalent) can grind them out. But they are not 
proper additions to the language (any more than strict versions of maikl's 
quirky Lojban sentences are creative or poetic).

<<i can see a good case for, lojbanically, precision & 
clarity seeming more beautiful than imprecision...>>
Me too. And that has what to do with the issue at hand? A good metaphor is 
not imprecise; it is often more accurate than a bad definition (i.e., most 
definitions as given and certainly most that fit into compounds)

<<Now, this is really becoming a discussion about kennings. Kennings, i'll be 
the first to agree, are fascinating.>>
I remember some remarks under the title "kennings" from a couple of years 
ago. Would you care to remind us what they are and how they fit in (and tell 
-- rather than remind -- the majority of the present company, who have joined 
since those days)?