Re: sarji

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

This is an interesting point; I've wondered the same about other Lojban
predicates. I would argue that _sarji_ in this context should not be marked
as a metaphor. Support means different things depending on what is
supported. Supporting the Republican party is different from supporting the
Sears Tower. One approach would be to have different predicates for the
different meanings of support, but this would be unwieldy for some
concepts. Supporting the Republican party suggests some da is keeping the
GOP going by some de. (words, cash, etc.) Supporting the Sears Tower
suggests that some da is keeping the building erect by some de (structural
rigidity, tension member, etc.) Even though the details of support are
different in each case, the concept of support is analogous enough to be
fairly clear. Undoubtedly idiom plays a role; a commonly used sequence of
predicates will acquire its own meaning independent of the "logical" sum of
the meanings of the component parts of the idiom. I would argue that
metaphor marking should be reserved for those instances where something
other than the concrete combination of predicates is intended.
But.
One advantage of Lojban might be to avoid always going down the same
semantic path in language. So I could see how it might be argued that
metaphors SHOULD be used for conceptual support but not for actual physical
support. Both marking or not marking are syntactically correct: as with
many usage issues, inevitably-- the speakers shall decide.

-Steven

 >             Talking to the local Esperantists the other day, I was
>        explaining Cowan's eternal tag as a specimen of the language:
>        e'osai ko sarji la lojban, "Puhleeze support Lojban"  And the
>        question came up "Doesn't _sarji_ mean literal support, bearing
>        weight, and the like? Shouldn't this be marked for metaphoric
>        use?" I said "Yes" but now am wondering if that was right.  After
>        all, we (no longer, anyhow) think that the English "support" in
>        this context is figurative at all, so why should we in the case
>        of _sarji_?  On the other hand, _sarji_ is a fundamental word of
>        the language and a part of the design was to make those pretty
>        sharp-edged to allow for a freer metaphor development.  Comments?
>pc>|83


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413