tanru are not metaphors rant: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


==  MOVED TO: ==
Some Lojban propaganda conflates [[jbocre: tanru|tanru]] and metaphor. Look at the description of ''lujvomak.zip'': "analyze a lujvo into its component metaphor". This sentence is dropping in "metaphor" for ''tanru'', presumably so that innocent web visitors will see more familiar terminology.


[http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban%2C+Math%2C+mekso%2C+and+bridi+cmaci&no_bl=y]
Some ''tanru'' are metaphors, but most are not. Some Lojban metaphors are ''tanru'', but most are not. The words ''tanru'' and "metaphor" are so different in meaning that I find it hard to understand how one can be used to mean the other.


Robin's Palm Writings: Category: misc
See also [[jbocre: figurative language|figurative language]].


Navigation: [[Robin's Palm Writings: misc|misc Index]] [[Robin's Palm Writings|Robin's Palm Writings Top-Level Index]] 
''mi'e [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''


-is: mi klama gi'ai nu le do klama gi'ai nu le cabna == le nu mi klama kei le nu do klama kei cabna OR == le nu do klama le nu mi klama kei kei cabna
----


-with regular RPN, this is solved by strict place structure requirements
Well, you're correct.


-no Lojban solution has yet presented itself
* Inherited from [[User:James Cooke Brown|JCB]] who was a veritable [[jbocre: Humpty-Dumpty|Humpty-Dumpty]] when it came to terms for features of his language or linguistic thought.


-ex:
----


(3 (1 1 2 +) 4 [jbocre: 2 5 +) (2 7 3 *) +) *)
"tanru are not metaphors" is a misleading, ''malylogji'' phrase, since it was just admitted that some tanru ''are indeed'' metaphors. it should be rephrased as "tanru are not necessarily metaphors, and vice versa"


-hell, just try: 1 7 (2 5 3 +) 4 *
Heh. It means "tanru are not ''the same thing as'' metaphors". If I'd written it in Lojban, it would have been unambiguous! ''mi'e [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''


-the problem may *always* be insoluble with variable numbers of args...  Yeah, pretty sure.  Without parens or other tricks, anyways
------


-we could mark how many arguments we're consuming.  Parseable?  Certainly parseable if we set a finite limit.  Getting a bit pointless?
While it is true that tanru are not necessarily metaphors, it seems to be the case that, after the pedestrian utilitarian lujvo (sel- compounds and the like) and the simplest sorts of compacting (brode broda from broda le brode and the like), the most successful lujvo come from tanru that are metaphors.  This because (at least in part) they are short, whereas totally transparent tanru m(=~ definitions) are long and clunky. It is also (in part) because they are clever, catchy, witty. They do tend to generate charges of mal-something or other or to go against cultural neutrality. But they are still good.
 
-just use the ".i le ni'ai go'i" trick, but that gets complicated with multiple args
 
-argument consumption markers
 
-pretend zilsumji takes inf args, and last arg is always result
 
-(1 2 (3 4 5 +) 6 7)+ 8 + 9 neg +
 
-have words for 0 (gi'ai), 1 (gi'au), 2 (gi'oi) and addt'l (xei), and all (gi'ui)
 
-li pa li re li ci li vo li mu zilsumji gi'oi xei ni'ai le li xa li ze zilsumji gi'ui ni'ai le li bi zilsumji gi'ai ni'ai le li so fatne? gi'au ni'ai le zilsumji gi'oi ni'ai le
 
-seems to work
 
-a bit clumsy, but no worse than 2 args required
 
Old Notes
 
-NU reverser? helps with RPN, also of general utility: mi klama lo nu gi'ai cabna do klama lo nu gi'ai
 
-what it does is "everything preceding goes in the NU just declared"
 
-this allows RPN: li'ai li pa li pa ziljmina li'ai gi'ai li pa ziljmina
 
-li pa li pa selsumji le ni gi'ai li pa selsumji le ni gi'ai
 
-need some clarity in "everything".  probably "sentence". jcowan mentioned the gua!spi's version is like .i, which is prbably almost TRT
 
-NU uses subsentence, which is sentence + optional prenex
 
-it gets used in tanru-unit, which seems like it won't work here
 
- terms (or whatever's at the front of sentence) = ... / subsentence LE? tanru-unit(??) NU gi'ai
 
- BOGGLE: could just allow multiple selbri, if 2nd and up start with NU
 
-no, bad lookahead on say "broda nu lo brode"
 
-kpried's gi'ai:
 
-li pa li pa te sumji gi'ai nu'ui le = le nu'ui li ...
 
-li pa li pa te sumji gi'ai le = le sumji be ... (first unfilled place)
 
-broda gau gi'ai lo brode = lo jai gau broda cu brode

Revision as of 17:14, 4 November 2013

Some Lojban propaganda conflates tanru and metaphor. Look at the description of lujvomak.zip: "analyze a lujvo into its component metaphor". This sentence is dropping in "metaphor" for tanru, presumably so that innocent web visitors will see more familiar terminology.

Some tanru are metaphors, but most are not. Some Lojban metaphors are tanru, but most are not. The words tanru and "metaphor" are so different in meaning that I find it hard to understand how one can be used to mean the other.

See also figurative language.

mi'e jezrax


Well, you're correct.

  • Inherited from JCB who was a veritable Humpty-Dumpty when it came to terms for features of his language or linguistic thought.

"tanru are not metaphors" is a misleading, malylogji phrase, since it was just admitted that some tanru are indeed metaphors. it should be rephrased as "tanru are not necessarily metaphors, and vice versa"

Heh. It means "tanru are not the same thing as metaphors". If I'd written it in Lojban, it would have been unambiguous! mi'e jezrax


While it is true that tanru are not necessarily metaphors, it seems to be the case that, after the pedestrian utilitarian lujvo (sel- compounds and the like) and the simplest sorts of compacting (brode broda from broda le brode and the like), the most successful lujvo come from tanru that are metaphors. This because (at least in part) they are short, whereas totally transparent tanru m(=~ definitions) are long and clunky. It is also (in part) because they are clever, catchy, witty. They do tend to generate charges of mal-something or other or to go against cultural neutrality. But they are still good.