Message-Id: <199504260311.FAA04959@listmail.sunet.se>
Date:         Tue, 25 Apr 1995 20:08:39 -0700
Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject:      sarji
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 793
Lines: 12

             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