Eventually, I think Kúna should handle metaphors.
It was discussed on the Toaq server today, and an idea of formalization which I had, is to have an invisible syntactic node before all predicate words, hosting by default an element with meaning ⟪something having property …… or a property similar to it⟫ ⁓ ⟪… or a property which you can ascertain if I compare it to that first property⟫ or some such, and this default invisible value would be overriden if an explicit word like ⟪aımuo⟫ ⁓ ⟪eqjuna⟫ (“truely/genuinely has property…”) is used. That word would presumably fit into the same syntactic slot as the aforementioned implicit metaphor indirection element, so that by explicitly using ⟪eqjuna⟫, you would override that implicit default value.
In essence, I propose that implicit metaphors be always the syntactic default, and if the speaker wants to make clear that he's not using a metaphor, a word like ⟪eqjuna⟫ would be needed to override this default.
What do you think?
—Ntsékees.
Eventually, I think Kúna should handle metaphors.
It was discussed on the Toaq server today, and an idea of formalization which I had, is to have an invisible syntactic node before all predicate words, hosting by default an element with meaning ⟪something having property …… or a property similar to it⟫ ⁓ ⟪… or a property which you can ascertain if I compare it to that first property⟫ or some such, and this default invisible value would be overriden if an explicit word like ⟪aımuo⟫ ⁓ ⟪eqjuna⟫ (“truely/genuinely has property…”) is used. That word would presumably fit into the same syntactic slot as the aforementioned implicit metaphor indirection element, so that by explicitly using ⟪eqjuna⟫, you would override that implicit default value.
In essence, I propose that implicit metaphors be always the syntactic default, and if the speaker wants to make clear that he's not using a metaphor, a word like ⟪eqjuna⟫ would be needed to override this default.
What do you think?
—Ntsékees.