Re: [humour] con-chemistry? (Was: Re: The pitfall of Chinese/Mandarin)

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:18:38PM +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> > 1)      ihudroj0'n    hi0k3sig3'n       KileroK0'romu.
> >         hydrogen      oxygen            white-liquid
> >         (org)         (plur,cvy)        (rcp)
>
> Why doesn't your language have a simple, mono-morphemic word for
> "water"?  I can hardly imagine a language that doesn't (except
> perhaps languages of REALLY weird aliens who live in an environment
> without liquid water).
Well, I wouldn't describe speakers of my conlang as "really weird aliens";
they are really quite human. But they live in a con-universe where physics
is quite different.  Different enough that the most common drinks are
various *coloured* liquids that occur naturally. "White liquid" is in fact
quite rare, but it is after all the closest description of the water in
our universe.

>  Or is it protected by some kind of taboo,
> and circumscribed as "white liquid" in mundane contexts?
>
> And why is oxygen plural and hydrogen not?
Oh oops... it's supposed to be the other way round :-P It's TWO hydrogens
to ONE oxygen, darn it :-)  I must be getting old, and forgetting what
water is made of. :-P


T

--
MACINTOSH: Most Applications Crash, If Not, The Operating System Hangs