[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [OT] The stigma of schemas
- From: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 21:56:35 +0800
From: "Nik O" <email@example.com>
> > It takes time for a language to absorb new
> > material. US English speakers still talk about
> > the cut of meat as a "fee-lay" when British
> > English speakers have said "fill-it" for over
> > a century.
And sherbet with a t and sorbet with a t, too.
> As a cheeky Yank, i have always though the English
> deliberately mis-pronounced "foreign" languages as
> an expression of imperialism (true of most languages
> to one extent or another, yes?).
Borrowed words are fitted into the existing language.
It is disrepect for the local language to expect that
pronunciation, spelling, usage and even meaning will
When I worked in Japan, we had a translation problem
with a 3D solid-modeling system. When discussing how
texture mapping was performed, the manual said "this
acts more like a seal and less like a rubber band."
This was not an expected sentence. The translator
assured us that the seal meant was the animal.
As it turned out, "seal" meant something like
a paper sticker which could be wrapped. When
adopting foreign words, it is often only part of
the meaning of the word that is taken.
I think the test is this: is the word "schema" written
using italics? That is the conventional signal that
a foreign word is being used, and with its original
meaning. Since it is not, I think that signals that
"schema" is not being used as a Greek word.