Received: from mail-gg0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:36436)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMGclZyxExDXj9mABRoEhK5BIw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SvlU6-0002iW-0U; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:38:00 -0700
Received: by ggke5 with SMTP id e5sf6227236ggk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from: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=DSM7ld+6vRLLrQKP99wQjXzLwl6wOTxTb5EYFHamA3g=;
        b=K5zvUKOlH8FYpEKZWwz2ZDCsqwNB/7XbIuGYA/ixCH4dfimhWNCkLe52msP1LIOJA5
         Ldgz2o9nKMfnpz3XZ2x0dLXuHMX4vOkKDSf6aONxWnVTS8pE0z7vfuPKs/pNUYoaOMbK
         Iw1vhFSacNmT5zbFbPdp7qiq8pxpILVQ3iXBM=
Received: by 10.236.87.71 with SMTP id x47mr1570643yhe.6.1343637463402;
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.121.34 with SMTP id q22ls8746048yhh.7.gmail; Mon, 30 Jul
 2012 01:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.193.73 with SMTP id j49mr5825484yhn.7.1343637462717;
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.193.73 with SMTP id j49mr5825483yhn.7.1343637462706;
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f169.google.com (mail-gh0-f169.google.com [209.85.160.169])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n2si920446anp.3.2012.07.30.01.37.42
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.169;
Received: by ghrr18 with SMTP id r18so4419174ghr.28
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.94.196 with SMTP id de4mr7625467igb.17.1343637462397; Mon,
 30 Jul 2012 01:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <50156C53.802@gmx.de>
References: <f9e54e8e-3a28-4c2c-8d82-aa8dd744565b@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uOPKfwCs=H+yJDz0nBfQnkpnojwEnq8NZN_DwjG8NMjWeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<50156C53.802@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:37:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGO2uOOsQ7xTOWR7rxL=h1WG8P-=1_SxadJu7m+Eb0VZk8S=9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] again about "out of"
From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: escaaape@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.169 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=escaaape@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

> If you explain the metaphor while using it, what's the point of having
> the metaphor?

Nobody ever said that a metaphor was intended to be necessarily
opaque.  What I would like is some construction half-way metaphor, and
half-way lojbanic.  This would need two new operators [see original
message].

> I don't understand why a "cat" should be used in this sentence. What's
> the point?

A metaphor has something to do with a cultural experience, that is,
some experience most speakers of the language have had, or which they
have been taught about, through their relatives.

Thus, the story of the cat out-of the bag, is the following : in
former days, when a merchant on a market wanted to sell a good
chicken, but had not the fowl, he put a cat in a bag, and sold the cat
as though it were a chicken.   But, suppose the cat escaped from the
bag, the treachery came into light at that precise moment.

So, suppose some speakers of some language X, Y, Z... have the same
cultural foreground, which include this "story" or "experience" of the
cat-thing, then it is acceptable, on linguistic basis, to use this
language imagery to convey this meaning.

---

Now, either there is some cultural background common to everybody in
Lojbanistan (and the notions of lojban grammar are a part of such a
cultural background, so this background IS NON-EMPTY)...

or that is not the case.

In the former case, some metaphors should be possible to carry out.

In the latter, no metaphor can be produced, but at least some new
construction whose goal would be "to introduce instant and temporary
metaphors that have meaning during the interaction", should be
feasible.

I would say ( // and * would be two new lojban words ) :

"You really let the cat//info out-of the bag//concealment !"

And you would reply

"But the *cat was nearly dead..."

-- 
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.