Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > > Charles: > >I consider that separate from "false friends" but related. > >In any eurolang, there will be many words with the old Latin > >compounding style, de-mit re-mit trans-mit etc, and one must > >either love them or not. I feel them as inextricable from English > >as well. > > It is not that such metaphors exist, but that in different Euro languages > there has been different choices as to which literal and which metaphorical > meanings are preserved. This means that Euroclone designers have to decide > which meanings to apply to their words and then people learning Euroclones > have to shuck their native language assumptions of the meanings of those > words when they differ. This is identical to the false friend problem > except that because of etymological matches the false friends MIGHT > actually be true. But how does one know? The Occidental claim that you > don't NEED to know, but that you just assume that you native language words > have the same meaning in other languages sounds like it intentionally > ignores the problem. > > > An "Oriental" auxlang would use different metaphors. > > Which means that you would earn the language by learning the metaphors, not > by importing and assuming that your native language metaphors will work. > > >One can always add a modifier to indicate concrete vs. literal. > > Lojban has this as an option. > > >Metaphorical extension is deeply built into our minds. > >Metaphor vs. precision in language is a deep philosophical debate, > >but at this time, I simply choose metaphor, by the feel of it. > >Of course I am interested to see how far Lojban can go, the other way. > > Again, I have no problem with metaphor. My problem is with the assumed > internationality of metaphors that might be specific to ones native > language based simply on etymological "friends" that might be false. > > Lojban does not in fact go the other way - it is quite tolerant of a > certain kind of metaphor, maybe more tolerant than other languages. But > these metaphors are 1) analytical, and you are implicitly expected to be > willing/able to analyze them if you use them and 2) freshly derived and not > subject to false etymological friendship with anyone's native language > metaphors because the words look unlike the native language words. > One does not understand these things until one has stumbled over them. I must admit that I am not so frightened by the false friend syndrome as there is plenty of it already in Swedish dialects and Scandinavian. Like: >From Norwegian (or was id Danish) into Swedish: The ship had to reach a port because of a marble mangle. (Instead of): The ship had to reach a port because of coal shortage. But remember Kjell's rule: Contextus omnia! (Don't know if this is good, but it sounds OK and is lapidary enough to be hewn in stone) Le contexto es toto.