From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 15 05:21:46 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ILHsf-0000DE-Tp for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:21:46 -0700 Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ILHsd-0000D0-JT for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:21:45 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070815122134.PFHJ16925.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:21:34 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id cCMY1X00U3y5FKc0000000; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:21:34 -0400 Message-ID: <46C2F02C.4000105@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:23:08 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: anti-Zipfian gismu rant References: <46BBDB4D.6020401@lojban.org> <398993.4184.qm@web56403.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <925d17560708100554m6232d274ua912df386fd715b7@mail.gmail.com> <46BC6554.7080409@lojban.org> <925d17560708100638n2ed68814q94f8d9c2f4e5ebf1@mail.gmail.com> <46BC81B9.8090002@lojban.org> <925d17560708100922k6d111266o50236ff063bdc189@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560708100922k6d111266o50236ff063bdc189@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5369 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 8/10/07, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > >>1. There are other kinds of modification besides "type of" >> >>2. The place structure may be the same, but arguably the semantics may >>be different. >> >>Two examples from the book: >>kosta degji - coat-finger -> sleeve of a coat >>and any use of degji to metaphorically indicate a peninsula. > > Are you saying that: > > le vi kosta cu dukse clani lo ka degji > la floridas cu degji le mergu'e > > are incorrect uses of {degji}? If they are proper uses of {degji}, then > {tumla degji} and {kosta degji} both are types of {degji}. They are. But the *modification* is not "type of". A "kosta degji" is a type of degji, but I would feel it to be a stretch to say that it is a "kosta type of degji". Rather it is a kind of degji having something to do with a kosta. >>It is a finger only as a metaphorical stretch. You may be able to fill >>in a meaningful place for each of the places of degji, but it is a >>strain to use this as a tanru. > > More of a strain than using it as a simple selbri? You mean "brivla" I hope, since a tanru is a simple selbri. Coining brivla is not nearly such a strain because one does not have to worry about the appropriateness of all the places of the modified term. > If not, then > tanru has nothing to do with it. Metaphors don't need to be > tanru and tanru don't need to be metaphors (the conflation > of "tanru" with "metaphor" is another case of Lojbanic mixed-up > terminology). tanru is conflated with one kind of metaphor, what we eventually called a "binary metaphor". lujvo have an implied basis in a source tanru, but are not as strictly tied to the place structure of the source tanru, since jvajvo is less than a rule of the language. >>cifnu-degji - baby finger >>This is a kind of finger. But it has nothing to do with babies. It is >>using a metaphorical aspect of a baby as the meaning modifier. > > Which is not really relevant to whether a broda brode has to be > a brode. My use of the hyphen is to indicate that this is a source metaphor for a lujvo. Perhaps I should be saying cifnydegji. I tend to not use short rafsi when talking to beginners (and when I am in a hurry as I was that day, since I was in the last hours before traveling). lojbab