[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > I'm not sure I see the difference between a picture
> > > depicting three snakes and a branch resembling three
> > > snakes
> >
> >A depictee can be the 'subject-matter' or the 'iconically
> >signified':
> >
> >"This picture is about X" (subject matter)
> >"This picture looks like X" (iconically signified)
> >
> >Texts usually don't iconically signify, but do have subject matter
> >Branches don't have subject matter, but do iconically signify
> >Pictures typically iconically signify their subject matter. So
> >'picture' is ambiguous
>
> OK. And you're saying that two pictures of three snakes
> can be pictures of different things, but two branches that
> each looks like three snakes must look like the same thing?
When you put it that way, it sounds wrong, doesn't it. "The branch
is shaped as if it were three snakes." How do we say that?
I also wonder what "se ckaji LEka ce'u broda ci since" means,
given that "ko'a se ckaji LEka broda" normally means "ko'a
broda", but the ci broda is quantified in the subordinate bridi.
Anyway, yes, two poems about three snakes can be poems about
different snakes. (I want to avoid talk about pictures because
of their ambiguity.) But to say that two branches that each
look look three snakes must look like the same thing is
somehow wrong. They each have the same property, but "looking
like the same thing" fails to capture that -- it is too strong.
> But don't we want every picture of a snake (opaque sense)
> to have the same subject matter?
Only in the sense that if we each eat fish and chips then we
have had the same meal.
Annoyingly, I feel as if the problem has not been cracked. There
was me the other night thinking so hard I had to have a lie down,
and all the effort to try to write it up, and it's still not
licked.
To be specific, I think the story about subject-matter is okay.
But I still am not happy with the way of doing "banana-shaped",
"shape of three snakes", "taste of a ripe fig", "smell like a
couple of Turkish wrestlers". It's not good enough to just
define a cmavo and say "Lo! This meaning is to be expressed
by this cmavo". I/we need to actually understand the underlying
logic. Surely there is an answer that, once found, will seem
obvious.
> > > > "Lex Luther is afraid of Superman but Lex Luther is not afraid
> > > > of Clark Kent."
> > > [...]
> > > > Lex Luther -fears LEka me ce'u ro me LA superman
> > >
> > > But this -fears is not the same ordinary {terpa}, unless
> > > terpa is polysemous. It is what I called {kairterpa}
> >
> >That's why I didn't use {terpa}. But it's not {kairterpa},
> >though, is it, because {kairterpa}'s x2 would be {LEka ce'u
> >du LA superman}
>
> {kairterpa}'s x2 can be any property. I'm not sure I can
> clearly see the difference between {le ka ce'u du la superman}
> and {le ka ro me la superman cu me ce'u}, but if there is a
> difference then one can fear things with one of the properties
> or with the other. Both can be used with {kairterpa}. We could
> also use {le ka ce'u prenrsupermanu}
The idea is that -fears would bind ce'u in {LEka me ce'u} with
a value along the lines of "is to be feared". -reveres would
bind with a value like "is to be revered". In underlying logic
this would translate as:
is-to-be-feared cei broda zo'u -fears LEdu'u ro me LA
superman broda
So I think it's fundamentally different from kairterpa.
--And.