From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Oct 24 12:51:08 2000
Return-Path: <xod@sixgirls.org>
X-Sender: xod@sixgirls.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 24 Oct 2000 19:51:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 59338 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2000 19:22:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Oct 2000 19:22:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2000 19:22:07 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.0+3.3W/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9OJM4h12569; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:22:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:22:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Cc: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE^n+1: literalism
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001024092402.00b4bb80@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.21.0010241518010.12086-100000@erika.sixgirls.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:


> I don't think it will, IF it is "required" per your above. But given two 
> tanru for a concept, one literal and the other non-literal, I think the 
> literal will win every time.


Do we have a test for determining which category a tanru falls into?


> ><<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^
> 
> What is?



He appears to be claiming that if a tanru ends in a gismu, that tanru is
implicit in that gismu. Therefore the only way to arrive at a
"new" concept is to create a tanru without a final gismu!





-----
"...widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights 
perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass 
killings...measures which constitute...crimes against humanity.''
UN Commission on Human Rights, 19 Oct 2000


