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

From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 23:35:20 +0300

John Cowan wrote:
> 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'.
> 
> 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.

Analogous in some ways, to be sure, but perhaps not in others.
_Rivendell_ is an English rendition of the Westron _Karningul_,
which was used *at the same time* as the Sindarin _Imladris_.

> [...] speaking of London, rather than Londinium, in Roman times
> seems to be no problem either.

But then those are simply the English and the Latin versions
of the same name. One would be much less likely to refer to
Constantinople in pre-Ottoman times as Istanbul, or to Akhenaten's
capital, Akhetaten, as Tell-el-Amarna.

--Ivan