Re: Evolving shades of meaning (was Re: LUNATIC again)

On Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:53:54 -0500, Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> wrote:

>Herman Miller wrote:
>> That was also one of the design goals of Jarrda, and one that had at =
least
>> moderate success. Jarrda doesn't distinguish "square" from =
"rectangular",
>> for instance, but the usage of "square" to mean "two-dimensional" (as =
in
>> "square foot" or "square meter") is translated instead with the same =
word
>> that means "flat, planar". But I've still got a long way to go....
>
>But it uses a different word for "square" as opposed to "circle", yes?
Of course; in fact, the words even use different numerical classifiers (3
squares =3D jaghweog prridas, 3 circles =3D jaghsan nam). Indeed, the =
root of
"square" is a verb, and "circle" is an abstract noun. (I didn't plan it
that way, but it's interesting how it turned out. I kind of like the fact
that squares and circles are grammatically different, and that I can =
learn
something new about my own language!)