Re: Láadan

        I'm combining posts to conserve thread spread.

On Thursday 28 November 2002 02:14 am, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> Words for the default, unnoticeable level of heat/cold, humidity/dryness
> etc. are mostly missing, at least from the languages I know of, which is
> not many I'll admit but still.
>
> Words are certainly needed for the temperature perfect to humans, not so
> hot that you sweat, not so cold that you freeze or need to put on more
> clothes, that then make you sweat...
        It's not one word, but two will still do: "Room temperature." Generally
understoood here to be approximately 72 F, or 22 C. Note that it cannot (in
my idiolect, at least) be used to refer to other temperatures:
        *It's hot in here, the room temperature must be 50 C!"
        So even though you may be in a very hot or cold room, room temperature only
refers to a comfortable temperature level.

On Thursday 28 November 2002 01:33 am, Nik Taylor wrote:
> A word for "something that makes one feel hungry" (I use "hungrifying")
> Ditto for thirsty ("thirstifying")
        That would be interesting, even though I think "That makes me hungry/thirsty"
sufficiently conveys the thought without too much effort.

> A midrange temperature, such that one does not feel particularly warm or
> cool.
        See "room temperature."

> Pleasantly cloudy
        What is wrong with expressing the concept in two words? It's just a little
longer, but still can be expressed in a succinct fashion.

> Distinctions between blood and marital relations for things like "uncle"
> and "aunt" (or, conversely, collapsing the distinction between, e.g.,
> "brother" and "brother-in-law", either way, making it consistent)
> Non-gendered term for "uncle or aunt"
        Agreed. A couple of months ago I asked about a word to refer to
"niece/nephew"--the winner was "sibchild." On that basis, might "aunt/uncle"
be "sibsib"? :)

> "Truthe" (Tell the truth, analogous to the verb "lie")
        Good one!

On Thursday 28 November 2002 04:05 am, Muke Tever wrote:
> A neutral and/or a positive word for "smell" that isn't too high-flung
> (closest general-purpose one I can think of is "aroma" which is really too
> much).
>
> A word for the smell of food (like "nidor"...)
        Agreed--positive smell words are generally lacking. Although I use "aroma"
for nice smelling food. Here's what M-W says:
        "SMELL implies solely the sensation without suggestion of quality or
character <an odd smell permeated the room>. SCENT applies to the
characteristic smell given off by a substance, an animal, or a plant <the
scent of lilacs>. ODOR may imply a stronger or more readily distinguished
scent or it may be equivalent to SMELL <a cheese with a strong odor>. AROMA
suggests a somewhat penetrating usually pleasant odor <the aroma of freshly
ground coffee>."
        For me, "smell" is slightly negative ("You smell nice," is not a compliment
from anyone but a small child) but in some instances (usually cooking) it can
be used positively ("That smells wonderful, what is it?"), while "odor" is
more strongly negative. "Stink" is positively negative. :) "Aroma" is the
only positive term I can think, but for me it has strong connotations with
perfume. *shrug*

> A word for the sense of comfort that comes from being at home.  (something
> like the opposite of homesickness).
        That would be a nice word indeed.

> Also, first person dual inclusive pronoun ("wit/unk/uncher").
        I don't know about dual, but I'm all for an inclusive/exclusive distinction.

        I believe that Elgin's point was that there are concepts that are *difficult*
to explain in English that are vitally necessary *to women*--because those
concepts lack lexical items, women are at a severe disadvantage. While a lot
of the suggested concepts are nice (and make excellent fodder for conlang
vocabulary), they don't strike me as a particular handicap. See, for
instance, "sniglets." (Google for it--you'll find lots.) Cute, but for the
most part they don't add much to our expressive capabilities. Of course, all
three of you are men, so maybe that's why. ;>
        :Peter

Replies