From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 23 18:13:51 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 24 Oct 2000 01:13:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 15547 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2000 01:13:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Oct 2000 01:13:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2000 01:13:50 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id a.c5.a5710fa (4470) for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:13:45 EDT Subject: RE^n+1: literalism To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com lojbab: <> I don't think I ever said non-literal *works* better than literal. I did say that some moves require non-literals, and I did say that, if a lujvo works, then the fact that it is not literal should not count against it (indeed, I probably said that it should count for it, because it opens up a new area). Note that being non-literal does not mean anything in particular about the resulting place structure of the lujvo. I haven't checked examples (nor found them, come to that) to see how they go, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all worked out just fine -- in that respect. <> ^robber mammal^ is not the same as ^mammal^ or ^robber^, but it is already implicit in ^mammal^ and so, so long as the expression "robber ammal" is used literally -- and so could cover pack rats, Peter Cottontail, ordinary robbers, etc., etc. -- it is not a new concept. If it came to mean ^raccoon^, then it would be a new concept, but at least ^robber^ would have been changed in the process. I wonder, by the way, why no one likes "robber cat"or "washer cat" but seem relatively comfortable with "washer bear": raccoons are about equally removed from both groups (and from dogs too), as far as I can recall, and are in most respects much more feline than ursine (they even divide into head scratchable, chin scratchable and belly-scratchable, like cats). Of course, I like it because it clearly opens the way for otters and weasels (and skunks, regularly cats in English -- ahah! is that the prolem?). I am also rather suspicious of the favor for borrowing,which seems the most culturally biased way to deal with a new concept -- like just adding "skaiskreipri" to Lojban (or the nearest thing that will fit, maybe with a {dinju}ish prefix). maikl: <<>From: pycyn@aol.com li'o >only >"good" & "bad" seem relevant at this point. (maybe "GLIKAI" & >"NALGLIKAI"?) >> >I hope that the parenthetical pair is meant as another relevant >distinction, yes; & probably the more relevant one >not as a >translation for "good" and "bad." the opposite, if anything.>> The last point is understood, sorry if crossed orders on you. But why exactly is being English like so bad, more relevant even than just being bad elsewise? <> I gather that this is the answer -- that metaphors may mislead someone (why just worry about non-europeans?). But, as these threads bear witness, "perfectly literal" tanru and lujvo mislead people all the time. Sometimes an explanations gets the befuddled in synch, sometimes it just leaves them saying that the form is dumb. Clearly, if an explanation doesn't help, the word or phrase doesn't work, so we drop it regardless where it comes from. But, as noted, "sky scraper" seems to work crossculturally (in part because there is a sky and it does get scraped, once you come to think of it while looking at the object in question) so it is a bad example of bad metaphors; some of JCB's "maker" compounds are more drastic-- perfectly good Englsih but unintelligible in Lojban to non-speakers of English or French. <<>From: pycyn@aol.com li'o >unless the explanation >already pushes beyond the old concepts, all you have is an old >concept, a potential that has already been covered. Take Prigogine's "emergent order" for instance. That's a subtle & important idea, rather challenging to traditional "craftsman" metaphors, & presently reduced only so far as a cliche' couplet. It would be nice to say it in a single word of fewer syllables, but what does that have to do with its availability as a novel idea? Or consider "wuy", a word i coined to mean "casual unquestioning acceptance". One can use this concept already without having had a word for it. And there's the experience of learning to ride a bicycle: no one word for this, & probably not even explicable in descriptive language at all. You just have to do it>> Assuming ^emergent order^ is a new concept, then the envelope has already been pushed -- order could not previously be emergent (that can't be right -- that is old hat) or both meanings have been shoved around a bit (apparently that, then). When it is fully functional (i.e., not just a concept to be thought about, but a real part of our intellectual material) -- if it ever is, then it will probably have a snappy word, likely an old one reworked. The experience of learning to ride a bike is just an experience; what does that have to do with concepts -- as noted, it is not even analyzable rationally? Compare the smell of coffee in Wittgenstein. I don't know enough about "wuy" (including which of the several possible ways to pronounce it) to comment: is it a description or an expression of an attitude?