[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Xod:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > Xod:
> > > On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Robin Turner wrote:
> > >
> > > > I imagine cognitive linguists would also find it interesting from the
> > > > point of metaphor. Lojban combines the explicit metaphor-making of
> > > > lujvo (which are not metaphorical in the common sense of the word, but
> > > > are in the cogling sense) with an attempt to suppress unmarked metaphor
> > > > (which to a mainstream cognitive linguist would be quixotic but
> > > > interesting).
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you explain more about what Lojban is doing that seems quixotic to
> > > linguists? Thanks!
> >
> > A central tenet of Cognitive Linguistics is that metaphor is fundamental
> > to language -- that everything is metaphor. The classic introduction to
> > this is the very accessible book _Metaphors we live by_, by George
> > Lakoff and Mark Johnson, though in the last two decades these ideas
> > have been greatly extended and refined. Robin is a fully paid up
> > card carrying Cognitive Linguist.
>
> What do you mean by metaphor that we are actively suppressing in lojban?
> Are you talking about the attitude that attacks picturesque lujvo in favor
> of dikyjvo?
It was Robin talked about suppressing metaphor, and he probably isn't
on Jboske. But at any rate, what he means is that part of Lojbanistani
culture includes the folk-linguistic (which is not to say false) belief
that there is a distinction between literal and figurative language,
and that it is improper to use figurative language when it is not
marked as such, especially outside of specifically literary contexts.
For example, {le do se cusku cu gasnu lo nu spofu fa lo'e mi stedu}
would be frowned-upon usage if I meant that I was having difficulty
understanding you.
--And.