Subject: RE^n+1: literalism

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:13:45 EDT

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, and I did say that, if a
lujvo works, then the fact that it is not literal should not count
against it (indeed, I probably said that it should count for it, because
it opens up a new area). Note that being non-literal does not mean
anything in particular about the resulting place structure of the
lujvo. I haven't checked examples (nor found them, come to that)
to see how they go, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all worked
out just fine -- in that respect.

<<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^ 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. 
I wonder, by the way, why no one likes "robber cat"or "washer cat"
but seem relatively comfortable with "washer bear": 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). 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?). 
I am also rather suspicious of the favor for borrowing,which seems
the most culturally biased way to deal with a new concept -- like
just adding "skaiskreipri" to Lojban (or the nearest thing that will
fit, maybe with a {dinju}ish prefix).
maikl:
<<>From: [email-masked]
li'o
>only
>"good" & "bad" seem relevant at this point. (maybe "GLIKAI" &
>"NALGLIKAI"?) >>
>I hope that the parenthetical pair is meant as another relevant 
>distinction,

yes; & probably the more relevant one

>not as a
>translation for "good" and "bad."

the opposite, if anything.>>
The last point is understood, sorry if crossed orders on you. But
why exactly is being English like so bad, more relevant even than
just being bad elsewise?

<<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?). But, as these
threads bear witness, "perfectly literal" tanru and lujvo mislead
people all the time. Sometimes an explanations gets the befuddled
in synch, sometimes it just leaves them saying that the form is
dumb. Clearly, if an explanation doesn't help, the word or phrase
doesn't work, so we drop it regardless where it comes from. But,
as noted, "sky scraper" seems to work crossculturally (in part
because there is a sky and it does get scraped, once you come to
think of it while looking at the object in question) so it is a bad
example of bad metaphors; some of JCB's "maker" compounds are
more drastic-- perfectly good Englsih but unintelligible in Lojban to
non-speakers of English or French.

<<>From: [email-masked]
li'o
>unless the explanation
>already pushes beyond the old concepts, all you have is an old
>concept, a potential that has already been covered.

Take Prigogine's "emergent order" for instance. That's a subtle & important 
idea, rather challenging to traditional "craftsman"
metaphors, & presently reduced only so far as a cliche' couplet.
It would be nice to say it in a single word of fewer syllables, but
what does that have to do with its availability as a novel idea?
Or consider "wuy", a word i coined to mean "casual unquestioning
acceptance". One can use this concept already without having had
a word for it. And there's the experience of learning to ride a
bicycle: no one word for this, & probably not even explicable in
descriptive language at all. You just have to do it>>
Assuming ^emergent order^ is a new concept, then the envelope
has already been pushed -- order could not previously be emergent
(that can't be right -- that is old hat) or both meanings have been
shoved around a bit (apparently that, then). When it is fully
functional (i.e., not just a concept to be thought about, but a real
part of our intellectual material) -- if it ever is, then it will probably
have a snappy word, likely an old one reworked.
The experience of learning to ride a bike is just an experience; what
does that have to do with concepts -- as noted, it is not even
analyzable rationally? Compare the smell of coffee in Wittgenstein.
I don't know enough about "wuy" (including which of the several possible ways 
to
pronounce it) to comment: is it a description or an expression of an attitude?