Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are people of many nationalities who can
> learn languages easily, and they often become
> interpreters and translators. Their ability to
> learn a new language does not reflect the
> relationships of their original language to
> anything else. Champolleon (who translated the
> Rosetta Stone) knew 22 languages. But that
> doesn't mean ancient Egyptian is related to
> French.
-------------------
Apples and lug-nuts. Translating a written language verses acquiring an unknown, unwritten tongue verbally are not the same thing. Not to mention absorbing differing dialects on the fly.
>
> Another problem with this is that people "hear"
> according to the sounds of their native language.
> This is often caricatured (but shows a good
> example) with English and Japanese.
>
> We say "English"... they say "Engrish." We say
> "Peking". Chinese say something that is closer
> (but not exactly) "Beijing."
> --------------------------------------
How is this a problem? This a reality which must be dealt with logically. Not with spreadsheets.

> Sound is the worst measure of linguistic
> closeness. Cultural markers have to be strongly
> distinct (most cultures are afraid of any creature
> that runs or flies in the night) -- such as the
> relationship between the Bible story of the Flood
> and the Flood story of Gilgamesh.
=========================
??????????
>
> Closeness is assessed by root words, by language
> structure, by styles of metalworking and weaving
> and cloth patterns and names and a thousand other
> details.
===========================
That is what I have been saying. I simply referred to it as "Cultural context".

> -- Byrd
> Moderator, Hall of Ma'at