lujvo interpretation (was: Organic quality)

[uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

gls@Think.COM (Guy Steele) writes: 
> Do you really mean to say that the anger is like an animal,
> or that the anger is like the anger of an animal?  The first
> is more poetic, but I suspect you meant the second.

The semi-original topic was what is the meaning of a compound word
(lujvo). So <gls>'s question goes to the heart of the matter.  I expect
<lojbab> to say, see what human speakers do with it -- a reasonable
position, except that you can't write a program for it.  I find it
useful to divide compounds into two sets.  

Lawful compounds satisfy simple rules of interpretation which allow
them to be transformed to a set of phrases and arguments that mean the
same thing.  Typical are the combination of a directional property and
a verb of motion, or a predicate and its transitive argument as a
compound.  "dunk" = "push-under-water" illustrates both.  When I worked
on Old Loglan compounds, I found that about 95% of the compounds could
be interpreted lawfully.  With some Procrustean manipulation I have
been able to raise the fraction in -gua!spi, and to get the program to
actually do the transformations (as opposed to wishful thinking for the
Loglan).  

The rest are "true" metaphors, and they are a real can of worms.  I
just mark them with a special cmavo and the program ignores them on the
assumption that only creatures with souls can handle metaphor.  "Animal-
anger" is a good example, and <gls>'s comment shows what a program is
up against in interpreting them.  

		-- jimc