|From:||Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues <antonielly@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 12:33|
On 8/22/06, Edgard Bikelis <bikelis@...> wrote:
> Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues wrote:
> > Yes, but "criança" (a person to be created or raised) is any child,
> > from 0 up to about 11 years old. It is not a term restricted to
> > babies.
> I'm not totally sure, but in English 'to create' is just... to make,
> to forge something new, hm? If so, 'criança' can't be created, because
> it already was, otherwise it would be just a wish, a plan, or something
> on a refrigerator, waiting for the seeding season ; ). In Portuguese,
> and I think in Spanish too, we 'create pigs' (criamos porcos), but we
> are just growing them ; ).
It depends on what you mean by "create". I know that in English the
most suitable words for that context are "grow" or "raise". You said
"we are just growing them", but there is no reason English would be
right and Portuguese would be wrong, or vice versa. There is no
absolute frame of reference in Linguistics. The conclusion is that we
have to use the most suitable word in the language we want to use. In
Rome, be a Roman. We have to use "grow" or "raise" in English, and
"criar" (literally "create") in Portuguese. The Portuguese word also
makes sense, I believe even from the point of view of a native
English-speaker, although it would be strange if it appeared in an
English statement for that context (e.g. "We create pigs"). Anyway,
the source of confusion was a flaw of mine: I forgot to put [""]
around the word "created". I apologise for that.
> ..."Seeing his newborn son, he thinks 'oooo great, now I have to
> raise it! Let me engineer a plausible smile... : )' "... Infans
> creaturus est.
> Edgard scripsit.
By the way, the word "criatura" (creature) is etymologically related
to "criança". Maybe because a creature is a being which is generated
or "created" (raised) by nature. I am a natural creature, and so are
Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues