Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Formal vs. natural languages (was Re: Oligosynthetic languages in nature.)

From:Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>
Date:Monday, March 30, 2009, 21:41
My point was that 'ergative' may be a misleading label (especially for one
who knows the etymology) but linguists put up with it because that's the
label we use. Likewise for the label 'oligosynthesis'. I was *not* trying to
start a discussion on the suitability of the label 'ergative'.

I also objected to Jörg's disparaging remark about Whorf, but I hope that
*that* (at least) was clear.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Paul Kershaw <ptkershaw@...> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ---- > > "ergative" seems ripe for ridicule; what does this case have > > to do with "work"? > > > > Dirk > > It depends on what you mean by "work." If you're using the common > definition ("Most people work for eight hours a day"), not a lot. If you > compare the physics definition (force exerted in moving an object), it's > more sensible, although still not exact. "Active" might be better, but > that's used elsewhere. > > -- Paul >

Replies

Andrii Zvorygin <andrii.z@...>
R A Brown <ray@...>Linguistic terms (was: Formal vs. natural languages)