Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:08:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802251708.MAA16542@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: kissing (was: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 1205e417b89ff39d1c0d12a491b3dd06 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 25 11:58:31 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >I'm no opponent of unmarked metaphor, but when establishing >word-meaning we do need to distinguish between core/literal meaning >and peripheral/meaphorical meaning. Whereas I am a literalist (especially LOjbanically) and I would rather see metaphorical extensiuons marked in Lojban. Jorge cam up with a construal of his metaphorical extensions that fit the place structures, but I think that they are a big stretch. While it may not suit people's poetic fancy, I see no need to have many ways to say the same thing unless those alternate ways actually convey different informations about the relationship. Using klama instead of binxo to express a color change does not convey anything more than binxo does - the extra places are filled in with obvious and contentless values that were clearly not the reason why klama was chosen for the examples (of course Jorge chose the examples not to actually convey information about wall colors but to talk about the language, but that is beside the point %^). I opine (jinvi gi'e krici gi'e na djuno gi'e na birti) that metaphorical extension is a BAD THING (tm) that most people atracted to the ideas behind LOjban will find unattractive in its (potential) use. lojbab