From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Apr 26 03:37:45 1995
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>
Message-ID: <ZxVhsE0hGqE.A.QSB.O40kLB@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


>From lojbab
To: pcliffje@CRL.COM
Subject: Re:  sarji

> 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 is 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
Cc: lojban