On Jul 29, 2016 3:32 PM, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2016-07-29 15:46 GMT+03:00 Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak.prog@gmail.com>:
>>
>> b
>> lanu blanu:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Em terça-feira, 12 de julho de 2016 13:08:51 UTC+3, la uakci escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> The other day, I was thinking, "wouldn't it be useful to have a sumti-raising infix cmavo?".
>>>> In other words, wouldn't it be useful to have a cmavo that goes between the raised sumti and the rest.
>>>>
>>>> la solpa'i / la selpa'i / la me zi'o already discussed it over on his blog:
>>>> http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/proprietor-fronting
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, there is this fancy word, {zo'ei} (of LAhE).
>>>> It's roughly equivalent to {zo'e pe}, but more of a single word than two.
>>>> While {tu'a}, {jai} and {kai'a} (from the blog post) relate to a sumti and an event,
>>>> {zo'ei} is a relation between a sumti and something related to it.
>>>>
>>>> This brings us to metonyms.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is "sumti-raising" is in the topic? :)
>>> Metonymy and raising are separate beasts.
>>
>>
>> 1) Not really. Metonymy relates an object to something related to that object (well duh),
>> and sumti-raising relates an object to an event related to that object. Thus, sumti-raising
>> is a subset of metonymy.
>
>
> Yes, I meant {tu'a}, which cannot work for "Plato and Shakespear are here in this room on the same shelf."
The title uses metonymy. zo'o
~ mi'edo'u
>
>> 2) The first email reads, "This brings us to metonyms", meaning that the topic moved from sumti-
>> -raising to metonymy. Oops. The "parallel" topic to the main one turned out to be the main one,
>> my bad.
>>
>> Anyway, QUESTIONS! Please contribute to the topic.
>>
>> ~ mi'e la uakci mu'o re'i
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Metonyms are somewhat related to metaphors;
>>>> they are the usage of an object in a sentence instead of something of that object.
>>>> For example, in the sentence "Orders came in from the office", even though "office" really stands for "boss" (or something), "office" is used because it has some relation to "boss".
>>>>
>>>> If we were to translate this sentence to Lojban with the metonym usage, we'd get
>>>> { lo briju cu minde }.
>>>> Because Lojban is a logical language to some extent, it's incorrect to say that -- offices don't give orders.
>>>> Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event), { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X. X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
>>>> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>>>>
>>>> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>>>>
>>>> tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
>>>> zoi'e : X : Y
>>>>
>>>> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
>>>>
>>>> ~ mi'e la uakci mu'o
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/q7yZbfzMa6w/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.