Print

Print


Jay:
> We do, except the historical spelling
> for the divine name in English is "Jehovah".

Oh yes, of course.  The father of a boy named "Jonah" ought to
know that.  Whoops.

> > It seems to me that they are Atestantes de Jehova.
> Seems ok to you, that's fine, but somehow that sounds like
> "Testifiers for Jehovah" when I read it.

If you'd rather be a divine gonad than a testifier, that's your choice.  :-)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the name "witness" suggest
that you testify?  You could say about a muder "there were some
witnesses, but none will come forward to testify."  Could someone
be a Jehovah's Witness in this sence - that they have "witnessed"
Jehova, yet choose neither to follow him nor to bear witness about
him?  I don't think so, but I'll defer to your greater expertise
in this regard.

> > The verb "witness" can mean "to testify."
> yes, and, "Someone who testifies"

Jay, the verb "witness" can *not* mean "someone who testifies."  :-)

> Is there a significant difference between "a witness"
> and "a testifier"?

... or between "a witness" and  "a bearer of witness"?

I don't think so, except for a slight semantic difference which
would get lost in translation.

> The problem is that "attestante" isn't really used much
> as a common term by the source langs. <big snip...>
> Interlingua tries to stick pretty much with the habits
> of natural language speakers. Or so is its actual use
> today.

Well, a language cannot try to do anything.  Are you talking
about what the language creators try to do, or what the language
speakers try to do?  I would hope that a speaker would try to be
understood.  For example, while vacationing in Nashville, I might
say to someone "would you take my picture", but in Rome, I might
say "PHO-TO?"  I'm still speaking English, but I'm choosing words
which I suspect my audience will understand.

Actually, this is one sense in which Esperanto feels more natural
to me than Interlingua (and is part of the reason I'm so annoyed
by the Interlinguan mantra that "Interlingua is obviously more
natural.")  An Esperanto speaker can fall back on "common usage."
You can say "this is the way Esperanto speakers talk."  In Interlingua,
at least officially, you have to look outside of the language to
justify one form or another.  It's funny that you suggest (see below)
how to get a "feel" for Interlingua, if the language doesn't have
it's own feel and must constantly look outside itself to get one.

You're welcome to disagree with me about this.  Actually, I'm counting
on it.  I just think it's great that a former fundie, athiestic
Esperantist and an Interlinguan from the Watchtower can find so much
common ground - homo al homo.

In another note you wrote:
> You're a rotten tomato,

At least we understand each other.  :-)
Pobre tomate.  No es triste?  Il dezira dancar, pero no puede!

> you "rubblerouser" you!

Is this a slip or a pun?  Do I rouse rabble or rubble?

> Join one of the Interlingua lists and
> lurk for a bit and you'll soon get a
> better feel for the language.

Thanks, but InterlinguaUSA, Auxlang, and Bablo are as close as I
care to come for now - although the offer to get together in Vermont
this October still stands.

One last thing... I saw your bilingual Spanish/Interlingua note
on Interlingua USA and ran it through the translator.  With
all the flaws these translators have, it's amazing how well
they do work.  I could understand the Google translation
of the Spanish better than the Interlingua.

Thomas