Re: [CONLANG] Re: Re: Láadan
|From:||Davis, Iain E. <feaelin@...>|
|Date:||Monday, December 2, 2002, 19:39|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Mills [mailto:romilly@EGL.NET]
> >ashon love for one who is not related by blood but is heart-kin
> > No
> What's wrong with plain old "love" or "affection"
Because there is nothing plain, or simple, about love, affection, or any other
emotion, for that matter. And english usage seems to reflect this, since we
have word pairs to convey it, "platonic love", "sexual love", "brotherly love",
"romantic love" etc.
The sense conveyed here is a familiar one, since I survived one of those social
periods where many of us "adopted" other members of our college community. We
would declare someone to be a "surrogate ____" where the blank was filled in by
whatever word fit best: mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, etc.
A godmother could also potentially be a target of "ashon".
In a sense, "love" takes on a different flavor with every relationship, so you
could easily define hundreds of words to deal with each relationship, I suspect
though that a large number of them would get "grouped" and would reduce the
vocabulary to a narrow set of words.
One of the first things my friends noticed about my first conlang is that it ended
up with three different words for "love". By accident, rather than design. They
were quick to comment on this. :)