From pycyn@aol.com Thu Oct 19 13:17:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 19 Oct 2000 20:17:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 18937 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2000 20:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Oct 2000 20:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Oct 2000 20:17:09 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id a.76.401ea77 (4546) for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <76.401ea77.2720b0a9@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:16:41 EDT Subject: Re: literalism [was: Re: [lojban] Re: looking at arjlujv.txt To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-10-19 15:11:40 EDT, maikl! writes: << words that don't mean what they're supposed to mean. >> Whence this "supposed"? That is literalism at its worst. Words we construct mean what we construct them to mean and *that* is what they are *supposed* to do. To be sure, when they are constructed out of pre-existing pieces, we have some obligation to leave a trail from the parts to the whole, but there is not obligation to make that path fit someone's a priori rules about how that path should run. The scenic route often has a lot to say for it over a route along the section lines. <> Whoa! If it has the same meaning, how is it more accurate? Come to that, even if it doesn't have the same meaning, how is it more accurate? I suppose this means that having a short, snappy, intuitive way of saying something is OK, but only if we have a long form that corresponds strictly to a prerestricted set of rules also available to get to the same place. And, of course, we always do -- those kinds of tanru and lujvo are a dime-a-dozen and a machine (or a rough human equivalent) can grind them out. But they are not proper additions to the language (any more than strict versions of maikl's quirky Lojban sentences are creative or poetic). <> Me too. And that has what to do with the issue at hand? A good metaphor is not imprecise; it is often more accurate than a bad definition (i.e., most definitions as given and certainly most that fit into compounds) <> I remember some remarks under the title "kennings" from a couple of years ago. Would you care to remind us what they are and how they fit in (and tell -- rather than remind -- the majority of the present company, who have joined since those days)?