From bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM Sun Aug 25 04:06:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 25 Aug 2002 11:06:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 32978 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2002 11:06:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Aug 2002 11:06:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (140.186.114.245) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Aug 2002 11:06:19 -0000 Received: by rattlesnake.com via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.114) Sun, 25 Aug 2002 11:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 11:06:02 +0000 (UTC) To: jjllambias@hotmail.com Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-reply-to: (jjllambias@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: [lojban] mlana References: From: "Robert J. Chassell" Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810561 The "front" of the cube is the side that faces me. In this case, the ball has no face, so x3 of mlana is meaningless, right? Depends which culture you are in; your `universe of discourse'. If I understand my anthropology and metaphorical reasoning correctly, in Anglophone culture, indeed, in the cultures of all Indo European language speakers, the side of an object that is conventionally its `front' is its `face'. If an object is symmetrical in a manner that produces two or more possible `faces', like a cube, then the side that I can see is its face. Some cultures do not use language this way. Lakoff talks about this in one of his books. (My apologies, no time to look this up.) -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com bob@gnu.org Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com Free Software Foundation http://www.gnu.org GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8