Subject: Re: [lojban] RE^n+1: literalism

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:22:03 -0400 (EDT)

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