Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:06:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711052006.PAA21497@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: CloversImp@AOL.COM Sender: Lojban list From: Karen Stein Subject: Re: What's going on here? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1444 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 5 15:06:11 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > Fair enough. I wonder that myself -- but take it as an example. Another > example might be learning the names for subtle color differences: taupe > and tan, cream and eggshell. Yeah, I gave the Welsh colour word 'glas' as an example a couple of letters ago, I believe. The boundaries of different colours can be EXTREMELY subjective, language for language. > Someone who knows the names might be a > better judge of color than someone who doesn't, although it would be very > hard to say whether the chicken or the egg came first. That's what I think. Learning to use a word PROPERLY will by definition train you in the distinctions necessary to use that word. Nevertheless, you can make that distinction in principle whether there is a handy word for it or not in your language, I think. I expect that this is true for colors. Another example about which I know more is feeling words (such as freightened, happy, etc.). Research shows that young children with greater feeling word vocabularies are more likely to express themselves verbally (which is more clear and satisfying than physically). Furthermore, possession of an extensive feeling word vocabulary seems to increase their appreciation of the range of feelings possible. I have heard 2 year olds discussing being frustrated, furious, excited, pleased, etc. rather than the standard of only happy, mad, and sad which many learn. co'o. karis.