li [Thomas Alexander] mi tulis la
> Na, und? The point is that there's no logical reason
> (in any language, well, no reason that I know of) why
> fluids should run but not walk. The teacher attempted
> to supply one and then realised there wasn't one. The
> fact that it's the same as English doesn't matter.
> That was a personal example of the phenominon where
> the "relatedness" of languages doesn't always help.
> The Dutch students in the study hesitated to talk
> about the "eye" of a potato, and I hesitated to talk
> about "running" blood.
> How could Jens's metaphor idea help us here? Could
> we conceive of a language with just one word for
> running and flowing? Would that be good? How about
> trickling, or gushing, or rushing, or creeping,
> walking, or strolling? I could conceive of a language
> with one word for any kind of forward motion, and then
> use other words if necessary to say whether this
> motion is fast, slow, on foot, powered or unpowered,
> (e.g. coast, glide) or involves certain specified
> rhythmic foot motions (skip, trot, galop, run, speed-
> walk, canter, march), but I wouldn't want to use
> said language to coach a young bicyclist or to teach
> horseback riding.
In Sasxsek, I have a word "kin" meaning "to move; to go" (<
"kinetic") to cover motion in general. If can be compounded for
more specific type of motion.
kin (move) = go
tukin (at+move) = arrive
fukin (toward+move) = approach
mukin (away+move) = go away
sukin (through+move) = go through, traverse
futxkin (foot+move) = walk
There are however some other words for specific types of motion
run = run (move
quickly on foot)
riv = flow
rivim (flow+DIM) = trickle
nos = carry
nosa (carry+PASSIVE) = ride (lit: "be
> MacLeod Dave,
> I suspect that "head/leader" is universal, or very
> nearly so. The head leads the body not only by
> thinking, but in other ways. The head usually looks
> wherever the body is about to go, and it can be
> exploited as a way to move people and animals around.
> Where the head goes, the tail will follow. Many
> people think that we think in our hearts, but all
> people have seen how the head is first in motion.
Right, this is one example of something that is very intuitive.
Our existence IS mostly in our heads. It's not just the brain,
but we also have 4 of the five senses (sight, hearing, taste,
smell) that take place entirely within the head.
> But isn't that an interesting question? So far it
> seems universal that all people imagine that time
> runs perpendicular to the axis defined by their
> shoulders, and not from right to left or left to
> right. I suspect that they used to have a concept of
> time not unlike our own, but then "turned around"
> in part because of the way their language requires
> one to mark whether an event hearsay or not.
A good analogy would be something like this: You are walking
down a road (="moving through time"). Mile marker 7 (="7
o'clock") will be *before* mile marker 9 (="9 o'clock")