[lojban] Re: "Magician" - a case of deliberate polysemy?

[mungojelly@ixkey.info]

Quoting Penguino <spheniscine@gmail.com>:

> Perhaps that is what the x2 of *makfa* is for: something may be "magic" to
> me, but not to the performer. *zo'o*


That's exactly my understanding of zo makfa.  I'm reminded of Clarke's  
third law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

What is magic?  Magic is something that you don't understand how it  
works!  Stage magic is "makfa" to the audience, but for the performer  
it's just a trick.  I would opine that it may be the same with "real"  
sorcerers, depending on how their magic works: It's possible that it's  
makfa to the magician as well-- if all they know is that you wave your  
hands the right way & it happens-- or it's possible that they  
understand enough of the reason why their world works that way that to  
them it's simple & practical, & it's only "magical" to the uninitiated.

doi ro do .i xu do tugni pau?

mu'o mi'e bret.



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.