Where have all the theorists gone?

[cbmvax!uunet!ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn]

Oops, let's try that again.

I'd hate to think that the deluge of lojbanistani here recently has stifled
discussion on the more language-theoretical side; on the other hand, it is
to be asserted that experience validates theory, in AL as in anywhere else
(apart from real linguistics, of course %^). I found this in particular
in dealing with my examples for BAI selma'o: the theory for semantic 
interpretation I had constructed collapsed readily, to be nebulously replaced
by something less neat. Something similar is happening with my experience of
lujvo construction, and my attempts to apply diklujvo to place structure (a
topic which, one might well note, Jim Carter had not expanded on in his
diklujvo paper). What this means is that the time for formalising such aspects
of the language really isn't yet upon us, although some quite useful guidelines
and trends can and should be noted in any teaching of the language.

To get some kerfuffle back into the list, I propose a nice and vague topic
to the more theory-minded:

Metonymy.

How should lojban handle it? Need we flag it explicitly? Will a LAhE word
do the trick? In flagging it, are we flying against the face (or whatever
that idiom is) of the NL trends of categorisation we have been brought up
with? Will this make Lojban highly deviant sigmatically, and need we allow
such deviance to take root? Indeed, given the degree of creolisation likely,
can we expect to enforce such a policing of metonymy? (To say nothing of
"true" metaphor).

Someone out there please convince me there are more than five people active
on this list.

Yrs, Nick.