From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Jul 30 00:05:38 1996
Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA13422 ; Tue, 30 Jul 96 00:05:35 BST
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 838676839:22173:1; Mon, 29 Jul 96 22:47:19 BST
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net
          id aa21371; 29 Jul 96 22:46 +0100
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 3410; Mon, 29 Jul 96 17:36:01 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 5123; Mon, 29 Jul 96 17:35:48 EDT
Date:         Mon, 29 Jul 1996 22:35:56 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      may the wind...
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Message-ID: <838676795.21371.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


{ao roroi ge brife gi catke lei rixxadni be do}

Kolin offers:
> I would say
>        do stoga'e le rixfarbi'e a'o

That works, though with nonce lujvo.

> or more laconically
>        roroi brife le do trixe .a'o
>        (at all times something is a wind from the rear of you [hope])

Except that a wind from the rear of you is not necessarily blowing
towards your back.

> This is still fairly literal, and probably not really what is wanted.
> Better still would be
>        brife nagi'a trixe .a'o do
>        (something is a wind only-if [it] is-behind [hope] you).

Is that really what it means? Does it really mean "May *all* wind be
on your back?"
Same applies to Steven's: {peha brife nagi'a trixe .a'o do} "May there be
something that is wind only if it is behind you" - doesn't quite get the
right meaning.

There seems to be a misunderstanding concerning metaphor:

Andruc: "We should of course translate "may the wind..." first into what
it means, something like ?? "I hope always/most of the time you are helped
(by something)" ?? and then into lojban"
Bob Weiss:
"As I understand Lojban, the literal translation of these aphorisms
contains no more than their literal meaning, e.g., either that there
should be some wind in back of a person (now what could that mean?) or
that some wind should be blowing towards his back.  Now, that's not really
what the original means at all."
Chris: "I'd expect metaphors could often be safely used in Lojban"

There is a difference between what sentences mean, on the one hand, and,
on the other hand, what speakers mean (=intend to communicate) when they
use them.

Metaphor is a relationship between what sentences mean and what speakers
mean. Metaphor is therefore not used "in lojban" or "in" any language.
Rather, any language, or any symbolic system can be used to represent
an idea that serves as the vehicle of metaphor.

Chris:
> But I agree that speaking-without-metaphor ought to be a mode of
> lojbanic usage that people train themselves to be able to use when
> necessary.

Some would argue that this is psychologically impossible and that every
sentence is used metaphorically; to some extent the literal meaning of
every sentence bears a resemblance rather than an exact correspondence
to the intended meaning of the sentence's speaker.

coo, mie And