* Roger Mills said on 2002-11-30 19:50:04 +0100
> Peter Clark wrote:
> > On Friday 29 November 2002 02:17 pm, Doug Dee wrote:
> > > Do you think any of the words Elgin created for Laadan filled a
> > > significant gap?
> > > (If you don't have the grammar, there's a sample of Laadan words at
> > >
> > >
http://www.sfwa.org/members/elgin/nativetongue/laadansampler.html
> > >
> > I printed out a copy and handed it to my wife, asking her to
> > comment on them.
>
> > niná the one responsible
> > Yes
> We have "culprit"
> > ninálh the one to blame
> > Yes
> "Scapegoat?"
Neither "scapegoat" nor "culprit" are "the facts and only the facts"
> > radodelh non-interface, a situation which has not one single point
> > in common on which to base interaction, often used of personal
> > relationships
> > ?
> How can there be a relationship if there are no points in common?
One might still want a relationship even if the only thing in common is
both/all parties are living humans. Beware the definition of "not a
single thing in common".
> > ralith to deliberately refrain from thinking about something, to wall off
> > in one's mind by deliberate act
> > Yes
> "Denial"
Connotation: the person doing it is stupid and should face what he/she
is fearing/hiding
Sometimes pushing something out of your mind is the only thing standing
between yourself and lunacy/suicide. Take modern civilization, for example...
> > shol absence-of-pain
> > Yes!
> "analgesia" or "anaesthesia"
Which is usually thought of as artificially induced. The pain might not
be physical, and the absence might be unexpected. Not covered by your
examples.
> > wonewith to be socially dyslexic; uncomprehending of the social signals of
> > others
> > Yes!
> "Clueless" Kash cakondrop 'deliberately obtuse' come close....
I think I see SHE's point, many of your examples/answers aren't exactly
value-neutral or a polite thing to say; the connotations are "somewhat"
negative... It's the eternal hunt for new, non-degrading euphemisms
I guess.
t.