[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PROPOSED CHANGE TO GISMU BASELINE -- PLEASE READ & RESPOND!
- To: snark.uu.NET!lojban-list
- Subject: Re: PROPOSED CHANGE TO GISMU BASELINE -- PLEASE READ & RESPOND!
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- From: wetblu!uunet!marob.masa.com!cowan (John Cowan)
- Date: Wed, 30 May 90 9:55:44 EDT
- In-reply-to: <9005291620.AA19140@gem>; from "prc.unisys.com!dave" at May 29, 90 12:20 pm
> > I believe that the use of "metaphor" to translate "tanru" is both misleading
> > and inaccurate.
> If Cowan's interpretation of "tanru" is correct, then I have certainly
> been misled by the translation "metaphor." However, I'm a rank
> beginner and don't know enough lojban to know whether he's right. His
> posting makes sense, and he is certainly correct about the meaning of
> the work "metaphor."
> The understanding I got from reading the first few lojban chapters was
> that the language got by with a relatively small vocabularly because
> everything was to be taken metaphorically--if something shared a few
> key characteristics with the literal meaning of a tanru, then the
> tanru could be used for it (e.g. Carter's example of "chick" for
> "nubile woman.")
> So which is it? Are lojban tanru to be taken literally or metaphorically?
The elements of the tanru are to be taken literally; the relationship
between them is where the ambiguity/undefinedness creeps in. Thus a
"blanu zdani" is a "blue-type-of nest": it could be a nest which is blue,
or a nest for things which are blue, etc. However, the word "blue" cannot
be taken in a figurative sense (= "depressed, e.g.), nor can the word "nest".
They are literally meant.
email@example.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)
e'osai ko sarji la lojban