Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:59718) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SovdX-0002Bk-AY; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:03:30 -0700 Received: by vcbfo14 with SMTP id fo14sf1230885vcb.16 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:03:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=V+LgU4/owzcg3P+EQZ8z+wL3WL8HE4u4kZFE685ULhw=; b=Zg3PvUlHCANr8sB5wsLizPFLH2mpGV7mo+GV6tLmLmEjfBISO69jjqfE007QsofWaY iR4xPjxgPNx+NJW3f3MSQ2BizCYP012thHBatzPUkaX50nDWzFYA2Dq3Y2axPOlTAS20 3eNgewEzowm7qaHftAbQsmz4R8hNXLjS5wEqI= Received: by 10.224.196.194 with SMTP id eh2mr5131724qab.17.1342008192856; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:03:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.178.19 with SMTP id bk19ls522981qcb.0.gmail; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.105.137 with SMTP id t9mr43817910qao.7.1342008191650; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.105.137 with SMTP id t9mr43817908qao.7.1342008191632; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmfepo101.cox.net (eastrmfepo101.cox.net. [68.230.241.213]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id z30si437068qcd.3.2012.07.11.05.03.11; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.213; Received: from eastrmimpo306.cox.net ([68.230.241.238]) by eastrmfepo101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20120711120311.QYAS18243.eastrmfepo101.cox.net@eastrmimpo306.cox.net> for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:03:11 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo306.cox.net with bizsmtp id Z03A1j00C2AfMYu0203AAX; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:03:11 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A02020B.4FFD6B7F.0040,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=lR4ZvCW7HH2AmT/MrKSgFRfV9rO+LBlED2yZpX9VLDQ= c=1 sm=1 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=o4AD7GVTNDAA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=EiHXwhb1vFsUs11jc8cA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4FFD6B7E.9020305@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:03:10 -0400 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Metaphors = ??? References: In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Escape Landsome wrote: > While lojban tries to give a convenient treatment of anaphor and > anaphoric resolution (that is, allowing the speaker to be thoroughly > precise in anaphoric linking, but also to remain as much fuzzy as he > likes), lojban tries also to establish the 'best' semantic space which > can be used in order to communicate efficiently, and this implies that > meaning is correctly carried along utterances... > > but... > > the anaphor problem and the semantic-space problem are two really > different ones, and, whereas the former is clearly a lojbau > problematic, the latter does not appear to be so evidently connected > to lojbau-ness than its companion. > > Indeed, a consequence of thorough semantisation is that no metaphor > can be derived from usage, and this does not seem to be a real > interesting property of the language, nor is it even characteristic of > the 'logical-ness' of it. That is : a logical language, stating with > no fuzziness what is to be said *could* use metaphors, after all. > > Another problem is with metonymy/synechdoch : rightly, I already know > that rafsi such as the one for "nose", for instance, include the maybe > importante case where the nose would be a noselike appendix of some > very strange alien species, or even a noselike protruding piece of a > thing, which we would like to call 'a nose', to keep things simple. > > But, keeping open such *interpretations* is the way to let the wolf in > the sheepyard, for they are indeed a way of encoding numerous > synechdochs, metonymies, and perhaps... metaphors. > > I recently took several minutes to read extensively a paper on frogs, > and they speak of the shoulders and the toes of these frogs. But in > what sense 'a toe' or 'a shoulder' of a frog still has a relation with > the similar terms for a human being ? Then, we admit to have shifted > a little form human-being-ness to frog-ness, but then, why not going > further, and perhaps one day we find that a bactery toe is something > we should account of. > > So, what is Lojban position concerning metaphors and the like ? The easy answer is that there is no Lojban position on modes of human cognition, especially in the realm of semantics. We have baselined rules for the syntax, and for the formation of words of the various kinds, and a restriction against new gismu and cmavo outside of experimental space. But there are no semantics rules. Maybe some patterns that have been observed, and any positions of individual Lojbanists like xorxes and Robin who have used the language a lot are inherently going to form standards or guidelines for others. If you want to talk about a bacteria toe, feel free. Your problem will be to get others to understand what metaphorical principle you are using, just as the person referring to a frog-shoulder has to manage. lojbab -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.