> I'm suggesting, for example, is that an IAL
> doesn't need to have one word for "grasp" and
> another for "understand".

I'd read an interesting discussion some time ago about
how new learners of a language tend to assume that the
words they learn have a fairly narrow scope.  For
example, a Dutch student learning English who knows
the word "eye" will hesitate how to use the word to
describe the dimple on a potato from which potato
plants sprout, even if the same word is used in Dutch
to describe both kinds of eyes. 

I remember in first or second semester German wanting
to describe some blood flowing down a street gutter,
so I used the word "gehen" (go).  My teacher pointed
out that you can't use that word because it means to
walk, and blood doesn't have legs.  You have to say
"laufen", whicn means "to run"... and then he realised
that although you can't walk without legs, you can
run without them.

The point is that a student may have to learn which
"metaphors" are allowed, since the tendency is to
avoid them.  I think I understood your point, and I
disagree with it.  Again, the metaphors which are
truly universal are so engrained that they're already
part of the way we talk.

Head/chief is a decent pair, but it's also fairly
obvious (as is head chef).  I doubt that we'll
be able to turn up anything new with this line
of thinking.  For example, it's interesting to look
up the word "grasp" in an English-Esperanto
dictionary to see how many words you'd save by
eliminating this duplicity.  :-)

Amike salutas,
Thomas/Tomaso ALEXANDER.
---Anything below this line is not from Thomas ---

Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.