Re: [humour] con-chemistry? (Was: Re: The pitfall of Chinese/Mandarin)
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 22:24|
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
> 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
MACINTOSH: Most Applications Crash, If Not, The Operating System Hangs