Re: Hot, Cold, and Temperature

Hi!

John Quijada <jq_ithkuil@...> writes:
> Ithkuil utilizes the third approach, i.e., a stem meaning 'linear spatial
> extent or degree' as opposed to 'shortness' or 'length.' To quote from Sec.
> 10.3 of the Ithkuil grammar:
>
> "Rather than lexicalize such concepts as pairs of binary oppositions,
> Ithkuil delineates these qualities as varying points along a continuous
> range. In other words, in Ithkuil you do not say 'X is cold and Y is hot',
> but rather 'X has less temperature and Y has greater temperature'.
> Similarly, one does not say 'A is near to me and B is far from me', but
> rather 'the distance from me to A (or proximity of A to me) is less than
> the distance from me to B (or proximity of B to me)'.
Ok.  But is Ithkuil designed to be neutral?  I mean, with this system,
you would still have a notion of 'larger' and 'smaller' for
temperature and distance which, if you only have one word for each of
these binary concepts, would introduce a bias.  You could not
distinguish 'closer' from 'less far away'.  So for a neutral language,
I'd expect that still both concepts be there: hot and cold, far and
near, each member of a pair using an opposite degree.

As for things like temperature and distance, this might possibly be
able to be argued to be neutral, but what about 'nice' vs. 'mean' --
if you only have one term, then you'd associate each end of your
degree scale with either 'good' and 'bad', which would then coincide
with 'large' and 'small', which would imply a strong bias to each and
every word using the degree affixes.

> Note that the choice of translation for the latter stem as either
> ‘distance’ or ‘proximity’ becomes arbitrary,
Here, I'd disagree, see above.  The two terms introduce a focus on the
direction you're thinking in, which I consider quite important.

> Virtually all Western descriptive and dimensional oppositions are
> similarly handled in Ithkuil as mere variance in the quantity of a
> single quality, the degree of an attribute, or the extent along a
> spatio-temporal range or continuum."
You only use these for spacetime?  Then the coincidence with a
'good'-'bad' scale probably drops out.  I still think I'd like the
difference between 'close' and 'not far'.

Consider someone talking about tea (or coffee).  What about 'it's hot
enough' vs. 'it's cold enough'?  How'd you translate those?  I'd not
be satisfied with 'the temperature pleases my personal taste'. :-)

**Henrik