Print

Print


--- Thomas Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I don't agree.  The most universal metaphors are
> so absolutly fundimental to our way of thinking that
> we don't even see them as metaphors.  A language
> designer would include them anyway.  If not, the
> language users would use them anyway.

I don't think I expressed myself clearly enough. What
I'm suggesting, for example, is that an IAL doesn't
need to have one word for "grasp" and another for
"understand". The same word can serve both purposes.
Or for example, "head" can be the same word as
"chief". I anticipate that people will protest that
this will lead to a lot of ambiguity, and it might,
but I still think that having a small vocabulary is a
better choice, even if it involves a loss of
specificity. 

Jens Wilkinson
Neo Patwa language: http://patwa.pbwiki.com



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091