From jcowan@reutershealth.com Fri Aug 04 08:19:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14380 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2000 15:19:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Aug 2000 15:19:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2000 15:19:31 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@skunk.reutershealth.com [204.243.9.153]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03298; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Sender: cowan@mail.reutershealth.com Message-ID: <398ADEEC.A913BFDD@reutershealth.com> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:19:08 -0400 Organization: Reuters Health Information X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan A Derzhanski , "lojban@onelist.com" Subject: Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives References: <398AB43C.E236F869@math.bas.bg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan Ivan A Derzhanski wrote: > `Arthur was king at Camelot' is fine with or without `what was > then called'; `Arthur was king at Winchester' seems to require > `what is now called'. (Disregard historical accuracy; my goal > is to illustrate a linguistic point.) And yet "Elrond is lord of Imladris" and "Elrond is lord of Rivendell" seem equally perspicuous, in a situation explicitly declared by the author to be analogous. Perhaps this is merely because we have other associations with (modern) Winchester, and none with Rivendell except what JRRT provides. And yet speaking of London, rather than Londinium, in Roman times seems to be no problem either. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)