Message-ID: <47261B94.7020700@lojban.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:42:44 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Quick Reference Guide for language words
References: <975a94850710270735t210f5212s8d39dd0003c08578@mail.gmail.com>	 <925d17560710270759i39867469o9ff60e75905c59c0@mail.gmail.com>	 <2204fa080710270924k2a9b6cbby3b2926a935773b9f@mail.gmail.com>	 <e6663d200710271128u75e184eahff2da3be3d6d8962@mail.gmail.com>	 <975a94850710271658m5bdfbb23y7a0c7b271ad5acba@mail.gmail.com>	 <4724B538.7070800@lojban.org>	 <975a94850710290008j65ffe239sdf5b6acc9c6dea13@mail.gmail.com>	 <4725DDC4.3040405@lojban.org> <975a94850710290746m65f6ed94sd31753006834dbb7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <975a94850710290746m65f6ed94sd31753006834dbb7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 3817

Joel Shellman wrote:
> On 10/29/07, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> 
>>>Given the restriction of no unrelated meanings, the metaphoric
>>>intellectual giant I would expect is impossible in lojban--or perhaps
>>>what I mean is that it would not be metaphoric. Would you say
>>>"intellectual man-of-great-physical-size"? You might, but it would not
>>>mean what we generally mean in English by intellectual giant. Perhaps
>>>I'm missing something?
>>
>>Is a "giant" necessarily of "great physical size".  In English it is
>>not, as evidenced by ... "intellectual giant".
> 
> My understanding is English allows multiple unrelated definitions,
> lojban does not.

For words on their own, yes.  For modifiers in tanru, virtually anything 
is allowed, and there remains considerable debate about modificands, if 
you can stretch the place structure to fit.  "tumla nazbi" (land-nose) 
probably wouldn't work for "peninsula" because one might have trouble 
filling in the nostrils place, but "tumla degji" (land-finger) can work, 
and in fact the metaphorical use of degji for a peninsula is mentioned 
in the gismu list.

 > I would suggest that the "metaphoric" nature of
> intellectual giant is only because in English, giant can mean several
> different things.

1: a legendary humanlike being of great stature and strength
2 a: a living being of great size b: a person of extraordinary powers
3: something unusually large or powerful

Definition 3 subsumes definitions 1 and 2.  If I were trying to 
translate the English word "giant" into Lojban, I would try to mimic 
definition 3 in a lujvo, and then coin lujvo giant-human or giant-animal 
or giant-powerful for the three subdivisions under definitions 1 and 2.

Under such conditions, if we equate intellectual to mental (menli), then 
the tanru "menli giant" exactly matches the English "intellectual giant" 
in denotation, and "menli giant-powerful" matches the connotation of the 
phrase.


 > I would expect the definitions for "a being with
> human form but superhuman size, strength, etc." and "greater or more
> eminent than others" are sufficiently unrelated as to not be allowed
> to be attributed to the same word in lojban.

They might or might not, because the place structures can make simple 
words quite powerful.  The Lojban word "banli" (great-grand) can cover 
an enormous amount of meaning.

I should note, BTW, that JCB took his "metaphor" label more seriously 
than we do.  He constantly used "make" (his equivalent to our "zbasu") 
in the same way that English uses that word, which better equates to 
Lojban "rinka")

And then there is the obnoxious Loglan example "man-do" for what a 
sailor does on a ship, as translation of the English word "man a ship". 
  We rejected that metaphor primarily because it was sexist, and rather 
later took note of the picturesque connotations of the metaphor (i.e. 
involving gletu and the boat), but not, per se, because it WAS a metaphor.

 >Ah... but that second
> definition is an adjective, not a noun. Given the usage here, it might
> be required to be considered metaphorical because of the usage in
> English. Moving over to lojban, though... I'm still not sure about
> this because these are two somewhat unrelated meanings and so would
> seem that it might be not allowed.

somewhat *unrelated* isn't the issue.  The question is whether they are 
somewhat *related* and if the relationship is consistent with the place 
structure.

If you meet someone who is "going for a walk", you would not translate 
that with klama for "go" because you may have no clear evidence of a 
particular origin or a destination (and while the walker may know his 
origin, they might have no specific destination).  You would instead 
probably use litru, which merely requires a route.

lojbab