[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] RE^n+1: literalism

At 09:13 PM 10/23/2000 -0400, pycyn wrote:

lojbab:
<<We still need some examples where non-literal works better than
literal.>>
I don't think I ever said non-literal *works* better than literal.  I did
say that some moves require non-literals,


But we're lacking examples.


and I did say that, if a
lujvo works, then the fact that it is not literal should not count
against it
I don't think it will, IF it is "required" per your above. But given two tanru for a concept, one literal and the other non-literal, I think the literal will win every time. 


(indeed, I probably said that it should count for it, because
it opens up a new area).
I don't see this as necessarily so, or else I am missing what you mean by "new area". 


<<But since a raccoon is not any kind of a cat, that is a metaphor that
misleads.  But a robber-mammal would work, and it presumably would have an
acceptable place structure using conventional analysis (as would a cat
metaphor, I will note - all the animal gismu have approximately the same
place structures).  Now I ask - are you claiming that robber-mammal is the
same concept as "mammal" simply because it has the same final term?  Or is
it the same as "robber"?  The argument is NOT that you cannot be
metaphorical, but rather that the metaphors should preserve the place
structure logic. >>

^robber mammal^ is not the same as ^mammal^ or ^robber^, but it
is already implicit in ^mammal^


What is?


and so, so long as the expression
"robber ammal" is used literally -- and so could cover pack rats,
Peter Cottontail, ordinary robbers, etc., etc. -- it is not a new
concept.  If it came to mean ^raccoon^, then it would be a new
concept, but at least ^robber^ would have been changed in the
process.
Being the modifier, that is easier to do. But really all that is going on is the elision of a term. "robber-appearance-mammal" makes "robber-mammal" explicit. But why is the latter "new" if it applies to raccoons, but the former is not? 


I wonder, by the way, why no one likes "robber cat"or "washer cat"
but seem relatively comfortable with "washer bear"
I am not the least comfortable with washer-bear, nor did I see sign that anyone else was. Someone pointed out that it was another source language's tanru for racoon, not that it should be the Lojban tanru. 


: raccoons are
about equally removed from both groups (and from dogs too), as
far as I can recall, and are in most respects much more feline than
ursine (they even divide into head scratchable, chin scratchable and
belly-scratchable, like cats).
They have some taxonomic category, even if we don't know what it is. People are on the whole insisting on preserving modern biological taxonomic conventions when doing this sort of thing. 


Of course, I like it because it clearly
opens the way for otters and weasels (and skunks, regularly cats in
English -- ahah! is that the prolem?).


No.


I am also rather suspicious of the favor for borrowing,which seems
the most culturally biased way to deal with a new concept
Borrowing for plants and animals would almost always use the Linnean name. Lojban does have a cultural bias towards scientism %^) 


<<it's not a question of purity, but rather of whether we want to
enshrine a bunch of metaphors that may prove seriously misleading
when substantial numbers of non-european learners are trying to
figure out what sort of thing scrapes the sky when there isn't a
sky to scrape.>>
I gather that this is the answer -- that metaphors may mislead
someone (why just worry about non-europeans?).
Because we are European language speakers and know our own language and culture. We *assume* we are biased towards European metaphors, so we eschew them. 


But, as these
threads bear witness, "perfectly literal" tanru and lujvo mislead
people all the time.
No they don't. The mean exactly what the literal tanru/lujvo seem to mean. That meaning just doesn't seem to coincide with some people's primary meaning for the English term being translated. the solution of course is to realize that there WON'T be a one-to-one mapping of English to lOjban words. 

lojbab
--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org