Subject: Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:19:08 -0400

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 <[email-masked]>
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)