Date:  Fri, 14 Nov 1997 23:27:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711150427.XAA01821@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals
X-To:         "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 449
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 14 23:27:15 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

And writes:

There are many different competing and in some cases equally
valid definitions of what counts as language, or as a language.

Do any of them include metonymy?

But only by one of these definitions (a set of rules generating
sentences (sound-meaning pairings)) is a language *designable*.

Would inventing a rule that said "do not use metonymy" constitute language
 design, using a definition of language which includes metonymy?

Chris