Re: Ancient conlang
| From: | Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, January 15, 2004, 20:05 |
|---|
On Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 01:50 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Paul Bennett scripsit:
>
>> For example, I am willing to bet that this entire email message could be
>> translated into any natlang, living or dead, and it could be readily
>> understood by any person reasonably fluent in that language.
Basically, I agree.
> Provided it had the necessary modern vocabulary: there's no word for
> "email" or "hominid" or "chimp" in Hittite.
Nor, at one time, was there any word for these in English. Indeed, the
word 'email' was still non-existent when I was a youngster.
All natlangs have the capacity for extending their vocabulary when the need
arises, either by coinage from their own resources or by borrowing (as we
have
borrowed 'homin-' from Latin to which we have suffixed a formative
morpheme -id,
borrowed from Greek).
The is no reason to suppose that Hittite is any different in this respect.
=========================================================================
On Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 02:10 AM, Costentin Cornomorus wrote:
[snip]
> Circumlocutions. For "hominid", use "manlike";
> for "chimp" use "monkey".
>
> Email could be "lightning courrier" or similar.
Why? English doesn't have to use circumlocutions nor do other
natlangs AFAIK (tho many [most?] do translate "electronic mail"
- courier électronique, rather than the English abbreviation).
We've plundered Greek and Latin in order to extend our vocabulary,
and borrowed 'chimpanzee' from some west African source. I am not
aware of any evidence that Hittite couldn't have similarly extended
its vocabulary.
==================================================================
On Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 02:36 AM, Tristan McLeay wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, but 'lightning courier' doesn't _mean_ 'email'. You might just as
> well borrow email into Hittite, but either way, an ancient Hittite (or
> even relatively modern people like my great-grandparents) wouldn't know
> what it was. You can't talk about email till it's been thought of.
Yes, but that's rather beside the point, isn't it. Shakespeare and people
of his time wouldn't have understood 'chimpanzee' or 'email' - the
educated would make a good guess at 'hominid', tho probably not get the
modern meaning.
Paul's point, surely, was that ancient languages are inherently 'primitive'
is a myth, held today by only a few and then generally for racist reasons.
All known natlangs, whether ancient or modern, have the ability to expand
their vocabularies when the need arises. To find something difference,
we'll have to go back to the time before Homo Sapiens.
Indeed, I am in complete agreement with Paul's reply to Gary's suggestions.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
Replies