Subject: Re: [lojban] RE^n+m:literalism

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:25:29 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 [email-masked] wrote:

> xod:
> <<What is a "concept we already have"? A gismu? Something that can be
> described with a tanru? I will boldly assert that ANYTHING can be
> described as a tanru with the existing gismu. Don't make me have to prove
> it; it may get ugly.>>
>
> I'll settle for ^raccoon^ for starters, but clearly not a gismu (and I'll
> temporarily disregard borrowings). Of course, you have the easy
> part, since I have to come up with the concept we don't yet have. I
> suspect, however, that some of the ones we already "have" will
> result in things quite ugly enough (some already have).

ko jimpe le du'u mi nelci le banli tanru zo'u danlu co ke clani be li pa
bei le mitre be'o je se junta be li ci bi'o rere bei ci'u le ki'ogra be'o
je renvi be fi li ji'i papa be'o je jarki se flira je xekri sruri se kanla
je blabi jebo gapru be le kanla be'o se barna je kerfa plana rebla be
sekai le xekri djine joi pelxu djine be'o je xabju be le bemro joi ketco
be'o je saske se cmene la'o gy. procyon lotor .gy

> <<no'e dukse masno .ima'ibo le tsali lojban na banro va'o le du'u ma'a ze'e
> casnu bau le glico >>
>
> Well, I don't think it has done too badly these last 45 years and
> probably for the next few as well,

na'e banzu xamgu mu'u le du'u na kakne casnu la lojban bau la lojban 

> <<He appears to be claiming that if a tanru ends in a gismu, that tanru is
> implicit in that gismu. Therefore the only way to arrive at a
> "new" concept is to create a tanru without a final gismu!>>
>
> I don't think I could even *appear* to be saying that, but in any case I am 
> not. The point is, remember, about *literal* tanru, and then I am saying 
> that, insofar as the tanru is literal the concept it presents is alrady 
> contained in its components (not just the final one). Again, I thought this 
> was trivial, but somehow it seems to be obscure.

I suppose a non-literal tanru is a X type of Y which is not really a Y?

This is context-switching. Inasmuch as the non-literal context is assumed,
it really is a Y. If you must be a stickler, it's not a Y and the whole
tanru falls apart.

-----
"...widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights 
perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass 
killings...measures which constitute...crimes against humanity.''
UN Commission on Human Rights, 19 Oct 2000