From: Dennis Poulter
Message: 2732
Date: 2000-06-23
----- Original Message -----
From: John Croft <jdcroft@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 June, 2000 1:13 PM
Subject: [TIED] Re: The illusion of understanding the past
>
> I can think of differences. But not through Latin but through my
> understanding of Australian Aboriginal language and culture.
In general, I think one would be hard pressed to find any differences in
Latin or Greek. One should look rather at non-European cultures for this
kind of phenomenon.
>
> This difference in concept or in percept I feel underlies every
> language.
Here I diagree. Within a common culture area, such as western Europe, I
believe the same basic concepts or perceptions underlie the differing
surface representations.
> We are told that "tout la monde" in French means
> "everybody" in English, but does it?
In a given context, such as "Everybody likes football" / "Tout le monde aime
le foot", yes they do mean the same thing.
> "All the world" has a different
> subtle meaning than "chaque corps".
"Chaque corps" does not mean "all the world" at all. Neither does it mean
"everybody", but it could mean "every body", which is not the same thing.
> Gravitas in Latin does not mean
> Gravity in English (although it etymologically comes from the same
> sense).
In the sense of weight, importance, seriousness, dignity, gravitas certainly
does mean gravity.
Cheers
Dennis