Re: LANGUAGE LAWS

Raymond A. Brown wrote:
>
> At 10:16 am +0000 18/10/98, Tommie Powell wrote:
> >But it doesn't need to be able to distinguish between "arm" and "side", or
> >between "eye" and "forehead" -- because it's just a trade language and can
> >get the gist of an idea across without any more precision than that!
>
> Yes, it's a normal reduced _lexicon_ pidgin - fairly common, I believe.
> This has nothing whatever to do with _grammar_.  The vocabulary used is
> sufficient for the purpose.  I see no evidence of "sloppiness".  Quite
> clearly, if in some exchange it did become necessary to make the
> distinction between "left arm" and "left side" it would be done, probably
> by some extra-linguistic method such as pointing, thereby making the
> exchange pretty precise.
>
> The evidence of all pidgins is that when a word needs to be added to the
> language's lexicon, it gets added.  Humans are extraordinarily inventive.
The primitive right-ponders who lack advanced sports (baseball)
might not be aware of "south-paw" as a term for left-handers;
also, one who can throw well from the outfield can "wing it".

Metaphor can supply new words as fast as thought.
Maybe in Chinook it would have been "left grab", or
the name of some famous thief, as in the "crazy"
example, since it was a trade language ...