Re: Request for information: Semantics of body parts
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, June 23, 2002, 13:57|
> On Saturday 15 June 2002 11:39 am, Tim May wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing about similar differences from English
> semantics in both conlangs and natlangs.
Phaleran's anatomical terms fall within the normal range of
semantics that natlangs show. So, like Arabic, there is no
word for "hand" distinct from "forearm" <fus>, nor a word
for "foot" distinct from "lower leg" <ipa>. However, there
is a distinct word for "finger tip" <þolta>, and the word
for "finger" <tû> includes the thumb <hyâ>. Head-hair (t'os)
is distinct from body hair <ardos>. The word for "ear-lobe"
<kela> really includes the entire aural cavity up to the just
before the ear-drum <tlukes>, after which is the inner ear
Many of more generalized vocabulary is borrowed from C'ali.
The word for "torso" <folik'o> is such a word, as is the
word for "leg", <þentor>. Some words are clearly of more
ancient borrowing, since they (like "leg") undergo sound
shifts that others don't (e.g. dental stops -> [+continuant]).
Some words come along with foreign morphology: the plural
of <hantu> "brain" is <hantuli>, rather than the expected
<hahantu> or <hantuna>. Some words are so recent that they
are not fully nativized, and are used with altered phonology
<c'invi> "arch (of the foot)" [ts'in.vi] ([v] does not exist
Thomas Wier "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637 Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers