Print

Print


On 28 September 2011 17:13, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I was aware that this sort of thing happened in some languages, but this
> isn't exactly what Stevo was asking.  He was wanting an example of a
> language where the one term is *derived* from the other, not where they are
> identical.  Still this is plenty weird enough.  Chinese speakers woner how
> we get by with so few words for aunt/uncle/cousin and the like.  I wonder
> how you manage when your grandfather and your grandson have the same label.
>

Well, how many families do you know where five generations are alive? Not
many I guess. So I don't think this is much of a problem :) .

In my experience, context helps a lot. After all, we don't distinguish
between paternal and maternal grandparents and usually don't find it a
problem.


> Even so, I did some of this sort of thing in Graavgaaln where there are
> words that are glossed as "relative of the first degree," "relative of the
> second degree," etc. with "degrees" of relatedness being defined elsewhere.
> IIRC father and son would both be first degree. Grandfather, grandson and
> sibling were all second degree.  Nephew greatgrandfather, greatgrandson,
> and
> 1st cousin were all third degree.  But at this remove, I could be quite
> wrong on some of the details.
>
>
I'll have to share some of the family words in Moten. I need to go now
though, so I'll do that later.
-- 
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/