From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sat Feb 20 09:04:06 1999 X-Digest-Num: 67 Message-ID: <44114.67.313.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 19:04:06 +0200 From: Robin Turner On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, xod wrote: > > > > Show me a language that *doesn't* rely heavily on metaphor, and I'll > > > show you a proglang. :^) > > > > Every library call is a metaphor. > > Not so. Libraries are additions to the 'dictionary' of primitive > functions; they are lexical, not metaphoric. > > The lexicon is built up from primitives not by analogy with > (prog)linguistic extra-(prog)linguistic context, but by the direct logical > consequences of the primitves themselves. Metaphor is inherently tied to > context, and proglangs are by design context-independent. You are assuming that there _are_ such things as primitives - I'm not so sure (though {ba'a} Anna Wierzbicka would agree with you, not to mention most philosophers of language prior to Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations"). {pe'i} if there are things we could call "primitives" {ru'a} they exist at a prelinguistic level (iconic, tactile etc.). co'o mi'e robin. {ta'o} if nobody objects, I'll fwd this to the cogling list, to see what the people there make of it.