From pcliffje@CRL.COM  Sat Mar  6 22:56:29 2010
Date:         Tue, 25 Apr 1995 20:08:39 -0700
From: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject:      sarji
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Apr 26 03:37:45 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <36KjqUbpIgN.A.SVB.d40kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Talking to the local Esperantists the other day, I was explaining
Cowan's eternal tag as a specimen of the language:  e'osai ko sarji la
lojban, "Puhleeze support Lojban" And the question came up "Doesn't
_sarji_ mean literal support, bearing weight, and the like?  Shouldn't
this be marked for metaphoric use?"  I said "Yes" but now am wondering
if that was right.  After all, we (no longer, anyhow) think that the
English "support" in this context is figurative at all, so why should we
in the case of _sarji_?  On the other hand, _sarji_ is a fundamental
word of the language and a part of the design was to make those pretty
sharp-edged to allow for a freer metaphor development.  Comments?

pc>|83