Re: Logical?

"Mike S." <mcslason@...> comuni:

> I think it is useful to analyze the problem of precision
> from the view of hyponymy.  Even if language XYZ has, say,
> "klur" to cover both English "red" and "orange", I still
> don't think "red" and "orange" are required to translate
> into XYZ as homonyms, but rather can be short versions of
> paraphrases, e.g. "klur like blood" and "klur like fire".
> This would not work if XYZ-speakers truly could not see, or
> more accurately, could not learn to see, the difference.
But if you were translating from XYZ and it had the sentence, "he painted
the warrior's face klur" how would you translate that in a narrative?
- A. "He painted the warrior's face red or orange."
- B. "He painted the warrior's face red."
- C. "He painted the warrior's face orange."

I would argue for B, since klur is a basic XYZ word and most closely
corresponds as a word with English "red".  I think the A. translation --
while less ambiguous -- belabors the point.  Thoughts?


> Sapir-Whorf question:  are there any known cases in which
> speakers tend to have _non-trivial_ difficulties seeing
> the difference in colors of a foreign language where their
> native lexicon does not distinguish them?
Allegedly not:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~jprinz/cog9.htm


Best regards,

Jeffrey
http://jeffrey.henning.com
http://www.langmaker.com