Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.217 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.217;
Subject: Re: [lojban] sumti-raising cmavo thingy
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <Hm951t00b56Cr6M01m96bC>
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <f839b926-1c67-8161-d84a-71061c4bbf4b@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 21:03:54 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Hm951t00b56Cr6M01m96bC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 7/12/2016 6:08 AM, Bruno Panasiewicz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The other day, I was thinking, "wouldn't it be useful to have a
> sumti-raising infix cmavo?".
> In other words, wouldn't it be useful to have a cmavo that goes between
> the raised sumti and the rest.
>
> la solpa'i / la selpa'i / la me zi'o already discussed it over on his blog:
> http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/proprietor-fronting
>
> Having said that, there is this fancy word, {zo'ei} (of LAhE).
> It's roughly equivalent to {zo'e pe}, but more of a single word than two.
> While {tu'a}, {jai} and {kai'a} (from the blog post) relate to a sumti
> and an event,
> {zo'ei} is a relation between a sumti and something related to it.
>
> This brings us to metonyms.
> Metonyms are somewhat related to metaphors;
> they are the usage of an object in a sentence instead of something of
> that object.
> For example, in the sentence "Orders came in from the office", even
> though "office" really stands for "boss" (or something), "office" is
> used because it has some relation to "boss".
>
> If we were to translate this sentence to Lojban with the metonym usage,
> we'd get
> { lo briju cu minde }.
> Because Lojban is a logical language to some extent, it's incorrect to
> say that -- offices don't give orders.
> Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event),
> { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X.
> X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the
> {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which
> is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>
> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>
>  tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
> zoi'e :  X  :    Y
>
> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
>
> ~ mi'e la uakci mu'o

Back in the 90s, when tu'e and jai were added to the language, Nick 
Nicholas frequently talked about metonymy, and he may have discussed 
this issue.  If you look in the Lojban List archives for "metonymy" it 
might be easy to find, since that word hasn't popped up too often 
outside Nick's discussions.

lojbab

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.