|
|
ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > > > "A language may be said to have no "word" or other element for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > "idea" in question, from which, however, it need not in the
> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > follow that it is incapable of satisfactorily conveying the
> > > > > > > > total
> > > > > > > > psychic sequence ("thought") or unit of communication in which
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > "idea," in another language, figures as an essential element."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Availability of a conveyance (whether it be a word, phrase or
> > > > > > > idiom)
> > > > > > > for an idea is not good enough; the conveyance also has to be
> > > > > > > suitable.
> > > > > > > Malayalam [End_@ bhar.tAvu" man.d.3n_An.3] can be conveyed quite
> > > > > > > accurately in English as "My husband is an imbecile" but it
> > > > > > > wouldn't go
> > > > > > > across well since the translation wouldn't be considered as
> > > > > > > innocuous/
> > > > > > > inoffensive as the Malayalam sentence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then it is _not_ "conveyed quite accurately," and what follows is
> > > > > > nullified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, one would have to resort to something that does not convey
> > > > > > > the idea
> > > > > > > anywhere near as well, just to avoid any connotation of
> > > > > > > offensiveness
> > > > > > > that might be imputed to the translation. "My husband is
> > > > > > > ingenuous"
> > > > > > > would be about as innocuous/ inoffensive but wouldn't be an
> > > > > > > adequate
> > > > > > > translation without additional adjectives, not to mention that
> > > > > > > "ingenuous" might be considered unsuitable for describing a man.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know what "ingenuous" would have to do with imbecility,
> > > > >
> > > > > Opposite of canny - artless like a child, simple-minded.
> > > > > in·gen·u·ous /ɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/
> > > > > 2. artless; innocent; naive.
> > > >
> > > > What does "artless, innocent, naive" have to do with :"imbecile"?
> > > >
> > > > > > but a
> > > > > > neutral way to say "an imbecile" is "unintelligent."
> > > > >
> > > > > Not that kind of imbecile.
> > > > > "Imbecile, you paid him $5,000 for the ear-rings merely on his word
> > > > > that he would send them by mail"?
> > > > > The person being berated might be a physicist.
> > > > > He's also too artless to assert that he won't stand for being ticked
> > > > > off this way.
> > > >
> > > > What does that mean if not an impolite way of calling someone stupid?
> > >
> > > The question had to do with translation:
> > > In Malayalam, a missus can also use the word to tell a 3rd party that
> > > he's this sort of fellow.
> > > In English, it wouldn't do for her to use the word to describe him to a
> > > 3rd party.
> >
> > But, _what_ sort of fellow? You seem to be using the word "imbecile" in
> > a way that has nothing to do with its meaning in English.
>
> It does have something to do with its meaning in 2nd person. It just
> doesn't retain its meaning in 3rd person which is what dictionaries
> seem to catalog.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Its _meaning_ does not change
"in 2nd person."
|
|