Re: Láadan

Muke Tever wrote:

(With snips)

From: "Roger Mills" <romilly@...>
> >ashon love for one who is not related by blood but is heart-kin
> >        No
>
> What's wrong with plain old "love" or "affection"
>That's like saying "why do you need 'cerulean' when you have 'blue'"...
At least as I understand it, cerulean is a technical term (presumably
quantifiable) most likely to be used by artists and others actively
concerned with color.  Probably of little importance to most others.
Whereas in--
"I have {great, some}"ashon" for him/her" it seems to me we could substitute
"love" or "affection" without any problem.

I grant that I haven't really thought a great deal about these items, but it
does strike me that some are just as ambiguous as "normal" Engl. words.  For
inst., what does she mean by "love", physical or non-physical?  What is
"heart-kin"-- one's circle of friends? really close friends (some of whom
could well be blood-kin)? spouse/significant other?

> >éeme love for one neither liked nor respected
> >        Yes
>
> Could someone give an example?  Surely love must include either likeing or
> respect.
>Beh ?   Since when?
>Easiest example I can think of is love for family.
I stand by my statement-- if one does not like or respect someone, including
one's family members, then IMO you can't call it love, it's something else.
Indifference? Bemused tolerance, maybe? Or as Robt. Frost put it, "Home is
where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." :-)
(And as Nik Taylor pointed out, it depends on who's doing the
liking/respecting)

> >niná the one responsible
> >        Yes
> We have "culprit"

>The culprit is the one whose fault it is.
Which is one meaning of "responsible".. As taliesin pointed out, the word is
ambiguous, and so is SHE's use of it.
"Ms. Jones is ?niná for the Marketing Dept."
"Ms. Jones is ?niná for the poor performance of the Marketing Dept."

Because of its pairing with ninálh, I assumed she meant "responsible for
something bad"--

> >ninálh the one to blame
> >        Yes
>
> "Scapegoat?"
>I think "scapegoat" has the added implication that the person didn't do
what
>they're being blamed for.
True, but not necessarily, which is also true of  "blame".

> >shol absence-of-pain
> >        Yes!
> "analgesia" or "anaesthesia"
>That seems more like the suppresion of pain?  (or feeling entirely, for
>anaesthesia)... and I dont think either would apply to mental pain.
I suspect these words have been hijacked by the medical profession.  And
which absence-of-pain does she have in mind, physical or mental? And what
sort of absence, temporary relief or some kind of permanent state (whihc IMO
is odd)--
OK-"The invalid is in constant pain" ~ "The invalid experienced a day of
shol"
?*- "He is in constant shol" (would this be Nirvana?)

I think in English (at least), _positive valence_ adjectives can be made
negative with un-, whereas negative valence ones cannot normally be made
positive--
"She is happy/ she is unhappy" "she is sad / *she is unsad."
"He spoke kind words to me/ he spoke unkind words to me"
"He spoke hurtful words / *he spoke unhurtful words"
"Pain" would seem to belong in the latter category.

> >wonewith to be socially dyslexic; uncomprehending of the social signals
of
> >others
> >        Yes!
>
> "Clueless" Kash cakondrop 'deliberately obtuse' come close....
>No, because I think one can manage to be competent, while still unable to
>interact properly with others...
Probably true.  IIRC, in fact, the psychiatric profession has just recently
come up with a term for this affliction (perhaps "social dyslexia"??).  Pill
to follow.

Anyway, as I believe Nik Taylor pointed out, aside from the terms for
menstruation and pregnancy, most of the items are or could be
gender-neutral, and don't seem to be a vast improvement over exisiting
vocabulary.  As a conlang excercise, however, some of them do offer food for
thought........

Replies