Re: describing names
| From: | Christopher Wright <faceloran@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, August 6, 2002, 2:19 |
|---|
Majken sekalge:
> 1. Her name is Mary
> 2. Her name is beautiful
>
> The first sentence tells me her name, while the second
> only describes it. But the only difference is the last
> word. There is no way to be sure that she isn't called
> Beautiful, except that is an unusual name. How do
> other languages solve this problem?
Ach, I forgot to tell how I have defeated this problem!
Actually, it's a lot like Spanish. There is a special verb used for
names. This word is a verb of the future. Oyah. It has an incorporated
passive marker. It can't be made active. That's really weird. You'd have
to use the instrumental form, I guess.
Therefore:
Seon omelge Vana (her name is Vana)
Seok onim asag vana (her name is beautiful)
Santiago sekalge:
>*"bonito" may be the standard Spanish for "beautiful", but in Argentina,
we
>hardly use it. Instead, we use "lindo".
Bonito? From an archaic bon- + -ito? "Little [cute] good"? Could I then
assume that guapo is reserved for physical appearance?
Laimes,
Wright.
____
"Do you know what happened to the boy who asked too many questions?"
"No, what?"
"Sodomy non sapiens. Probably got answered."
Reply