Analogy and Metaphorical Mapping
Which relationships can transfer from one domain to another?
Linguistic mechanisms that make analogies and structured metaphors explicit rather than implicit.
- T1 · Documented
Field record pending — no linked language specimens yet.
What linguistic research records.
- T2 · Interpreted
software borrows metaphors implicitly without recording their boundaries
How Lanskrit reads the code deficit.
- T3 · Proposed
mapping declarations
Speculative constructs — not executable code.
- T4 · Executed
Not yet compiled to a deterministic runtime.
Deterministic runtime — the graft as running machinery.
Each tier is a different kind of claim. We keep them visually distinct so a reader can never confuse a field record with a deterministic run.
Documented
What linguistic research records.
- source and target domain of a metaphor
- which relations transfer and which do not
- explicit boundary of the analogy
Interpreted
How Lanskrit reads the code deficit.
- software borrows metaphors implicitly without recording their boundaries
- assumptions from a source domain leak into the target unchecked
Proposed
Speculative constructs — not executable code.
- mapping declarations
- bounded analogy operators
Executed
Deterministic runtime — the graft as running machinery.
No executable runtime yet. This capability has not been compiled to a deterministic machine.
- analogical modelling
- explainable abstraction
- explicit metaphor boundaries
- assumption detection in transferred reasoning
- Claims that metaphor determines thought are contested; treat with care.
No specific languages have been linked to this capability yet.
Cited as examples of the feature, not as claims about all speakers of these languages.
Contested
Research source pending verification.
Kept as a research preview. Strong claims about metaphor-and-thought are avoided.
- Record version
- 0.2
- Last reviewed
- 2026-07-21
- Controversy level
- high