Message-Id: <199504260746.JAA13006@listmail.sunet.se>
Date:         Wed, 26 Apr 1995 03:47:59 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: sarji
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 935
Lines: 17

> 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.

This question has arisen before.  "sarji" is a relation between a
"support" and a "supported", with x3 as an opposing force or opposition
needing support against (and x4 as a means of support).  Given this set of
places, it should be clear that support iss not necessarily limited to
support in a gravitational well, and indeed most "metaphorical" usages of
"support" fit the place structure quite nicely.  The kinds of usages that
really need to be marked as metaphorical, are those in which one or more of
the implicatures of the place structure are violated.

lojbab