From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Sep 18 14:31:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 21:31:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 53681 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 21:31:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 21:31:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-3.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.103) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 21:31:09 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-213.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.213]) by mailbox-3.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id ADE0118BB2 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:31:06 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: figurative painting & anti-zi'o (was: RE: Re: I like chocolate Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:32:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200209171702.NAA01597@mail2.reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin John: > pycyn@aol.com scripsit: > > > Of course, this involves a looks-like correlation (not at all > natural, for all > > that) and the case might be harder with non-representational or differently > > representational (e.g., cubism) conventions > > I think it's erroneous to talk of "non-representational painting", a painting > being essentially a representation, though not perhaps of anything we can see. > "Non-objective painting" might be more appropriate. If a painting weren't > a representation, it would be what Mark Twain said Whistler's painting was: > a canvas covered with smears of tomato juice (or something to that effect). I don't see the error in describing Rothko or Kandinsky as nonrepresentational. Their works may evoke, but they don't represent. ObLojban: In the Spofu Fonxa round I organized, I had to render "figurative painting" into Lojban. The obvious brivla was "cintyxra", which means "figurative painting", because x2 of pixra is the thing depicted. But the snag was, I knew that "cintyxra" would get retranslated as "painting", not as "figurative painting", partly because translation is a fairly loose process, and partly because pretty much without exception, all Lojbanists are prone to unconsciously treating implicit zo'e as implicit zi'o. My first idea was "fe ba'e da cintyxra", and then I considered "ba'e fe da cintyxra", but these seemed susceptible to too many alternative and unintended interpretations. So in the end I went for "fe zi'o nai cintyxra" -- "zi'o nai" as an anti-zi'o saying "be reminded that this sumti place is present!". Jorge in his brilliant retranslation clearly didn't know what to make of this, since he just translated it as "painting". --And.