From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 23 07:21:35 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 23 Oct 2000 14:21:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 90915 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2000 14:15:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Oct 2000 14:15:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Oct 2000 14:15:55 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id a.a3.ce8532f (4327) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:15:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a3.ce8532f.2725a216@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:15:50 EDT
Subject: Re^n: literalism
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4665

lojbab:
<<I also once heard a feminist writing 
that said that tall buildings were phallic so it came to mind when I was 
try to think of a metaphoric way to describe just what kind of building a 
very tall one is other than "very tall".  >>
OK, delusive females too -- I hope they are not tooooo
disappointed.  But this is also objectionable as relying on another
metaphor (or some such thing), where every long roundish thing is
phallic (not, note, "penile" either), a product of the infiltration of
defunct psychiatry into pop. cult.  But my "30 stories" was off;
ratios much off 15:2 are both uncommon and uncomfortable for all
concerned and a typical thirty story building would not fit in that
range.
adam:
<<I'd love more rules, but they have to deal with the place stucture. 
They have to be formalizable. (I suppose I'm being a literalist.) Any 
rule which relies on omitted words or figures of speech 
("metaphors") is hard to understand and probably culturally and 
idiolectally dependent.>>
Well, more is better than fewer, but openness to even more is better
still.  We can always make up a rule once we have a case of it. 
But,as an empirical matter, I think your claim about omitted words
is probably not sustainable in its full form.  Most of the successful
lujvo would be (and have been) found to be lacking some "crucial"
bits.  Nor are they obviously dependent on the cultural background
of the deviser (though this is often hard to see, given our general
monoculture, different languages notwithstanding --see "sky
scraper").  
maikl:
<<i was referring to Nick's paper (which actually distinguishes three),
which in the Red Book are called "symmetric" & "asymmetric" lujvo.
if i wanted to, i could describe many more varieties, but only 
"good" & "bad" seem relevant at this point. (maybe "GLIKAI" & 
"NALGLIKAI"?) >>
I hope that the parenthetical pair is meant as another relevant distinction, 
not as a
translation for "good" and "bad."  While fitting in with an English idiom is 
grounds for
suspicion, it is not automatically a sign of "bad"  and, even more clearly, 
being unEnglish is not a sign of "good."