Re: kissing (was: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>Whereas I am a literalist (especially LOjbanically) and I would rather see
>metaphorical extensiuons marked in Lojban.  Jorge cam up with a construal
of
>his metaphorical extensions that fit the place structures, but I think that
>they are a big stretch.

They were your metaphorical extensions, not mine, at least in the
cases of dunda, cirko and lebna. Indeed, in the case of lebna you
didn't even put the comment about pedantry.

>While it may not suit people's poetic fancy, I see no need to have many
ways
>to say the same thing unless those alternate ways actually convey different
>informations about the relationship.

Neither do I. I'm just trying to understand what's there.

> Using klama instead of binxo to
>express a color change does not convey anything more than binxo does - the
>extra places are filled in with obvious and contentless values  that were
>clearly not the reason why klama was chosen for the examples (of course
>Jorge chose the examples not to actually convey information about
>wall colors but to talk about the language, but that is beside the point
%^).

But klama is different from binxo. Klama has three relevant places, and
binxo only two. This brings up another question I wanted to ask. What
is the proper way of using binxo?

                le bitmu cu binxo lo blabi
                The wall becomes something white.

                le bitmu cu binxo le ka blabi
                The wall becomes white.

The gi'uste seems to suggest the first, but I'm unconfortable with it.
It seems that x1 and x2 are referring to the same object, which
would be saying that something becomes itself.

>I opine (jinvi gi'e krici gi'e na djuno gi'e na birti) that metaphorical
>extension is a BAD THING (tm) that most people atracted to the ideas
>behind LOjban will find unattractive in its (potential) use.

Then how come dunda, cirko and lebna have both property and
possession meanings?


co'o mi'e xorxes