Re: _sloth_ (animal) in various natlangs/conlangs

>From: Barry Garcia <Barry_Garcia@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
>Subject: Re: _sloth_ (animal) in various natlangs/conlangs
>Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:12:02 -0700
>
>CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU writes:
> >  Poor creature has a bad reputation with that kinda name!
> >And considerin' it has been around longer than most other animals,
> >it's a shame.
> >    I was wondering if this seems to be common practise in other
> >languages -
> >natlangs and conlangs - to use a word meaning "lazy/laziness" to mean the
> >(demean) the animal?  Are there any exceptions to this nasty libel &
> >defamation of the sloth character???
>
>Come on now ;) Have you seen this creature move? In water it's faster than
>in the trees, and it's so slow moving. I hear theyre so slow and mellow
>they even get algae growing in their fur). They really dont do much other
>than look for food, and swim when they have to.
>
What about the -er- other activity necessary for the preservation of
the species? Are they as torpid as pandas in that respect?
I would have thought algae depended on dampness rather than lack of motion.
The problem with 'sloth' lies in the moral implications of 'sloth', not in
its root meaning. Calling it a 'slow (creature)' would be accurate and
non-derogatory.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com