Message-Id: <199602010024.TAA07419@universe.digex.net>
To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Subject: Re: JVOPLACE.TXT part 1 of 2 
In-reply-to: (Your message of Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:57:53 EST.)
             <199601291657.LAA28317@locke.ccil.org> 
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:24:39 -0600
From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 2908

John Cowan writes:
>For something (call it z1) to qualify as a "gerku zdani",
>it's got to be a house, first of all. For it to be a house, it's
>got to house someone (call that z2).  Furthermore, there's got to be a dog
>out there (called g1).  For g1 to count as a dog in Lojban, it's got to have
>some breed as well (called g2).  And finally, for z1 to be the x1 of "gerku
>zdani", as opposed of any old kind of "zdani", there's got to be some
>relationship (called r) between some place of "zdani" and some place of
>"gerku".  It doesn't matter which places, because if there's a relationship
>between some place of "zdani" and any place of "gerku", then that
>relationship can be compounded with the relationship between the places of
>"gerku" --- namely, "gerku" itself --- to reach any of the other "gerku"
>places.

This points out an issue that Don and I have been discussing for more
than a week now.  (In public, on the list, but in Lojban, and no one
else seems ready to jump in.  My difficulty in being relatively new to
Lojban was compounded by not being able do devise an appropriate selbri
for something like "x1 is a metaphor meaning x2 in language x3".  Like
tanru, but not restricted to Lojban tanru binaries --- encompasing the
possibly broader meaning of the English word.)

I used the tanru {besna kafke} (brain cough, literally, though meant to
parallel the English slang "brain fart") as an observative.  Don
insists that {kafke} should have been marked as "figurative", with
{pe'a}.  I argue that since tanru are already metaphors, such marking
is redundant.

The above excerpt from the lujvo paper seems to agree with Don.  To
paraphrase:

For something to qualify as a "besna kafke", it's got to be a cough,
first of all.  It's also got to have something meaningful in the k2 and
k3 places.  Furthermore, there's got to be a brain out there (called
b1).  For b1 to count as a brain in Lojban, it's got to have a body as
well (called b2).  And finally, for k1 to be the x1 of "besna kafke",
as opposed of any old kind of "kafke", there's got to be some
relationship (called r) between some place of "kafke" and some place of
"besna".  It doesn't matter which places, ...

This seems to be the essence of Don's argument.  A {besna} has no {te
kafke}, so a {besna kafke} can't be a "brain fart" because a brain fart
isn't a kind of {kafke}.

I still think that, having moved into a metaphorical space, a {besna}
may make a {besna kafke} through a metaphorical {te kafke}: in the
particular instance where I used it, the metaphorical {te kafke} was my
lojban creating faculty (I used {xaksu} where I meant {pilno}, moving
too quickly from the gloss).

I know Cowan and Lojbab don't read the discussion in Lojban in favor of
spending their efforts on getting the baseline finished, so I'm now
moving this discussion to English.  Anyone care to offer a more
informed opinion than my own?