Re: What's going on here?

[HACKER G N <c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:

> > There's
> >nothing fundamentally different about the two forms of being; they're just
> >used linguistically for different cases. If a native Spanish-speaker feels
> >differently, speak now or forever hold your peace. :)
>
> Do you feel there's anything fundamentally different about the
> two forms of "hacer": "to do" and "to make"? Or are they just
> used linguistically for different cases?

Well, you tell me, Jorge. Did you learn or notice anything significant or
deep and meaningful when you first learned that there was one kind of
hacer represented by "to do" and another kind represented by "to make"?
Because if you didn't, those words might well NOT pick out anything
objectively different about the two different forms of "hacer", mightn't
they? I certainly feel that this is true about the relationship between
"ser", "estar" and "to be".

> Different languages break up the continuum of possible meanings in
> different ways, that's all.

Oh, no! I don't think this is as simple as "You say po-tay-to,
I say po-tah-to". Some linguistic distinctions DO seem more than merely
linguistic. Take the distinction between the German "moegen" and "lieben".
These correspond roughly with Lojban "nelci" and "prami". Now, in English
we can say "I love my wife" as well as "I love potato chips", but anybody
who thinks that these two kinds of love aren't fundamentally
metaphysically different had better not tell their wives that! :) It is
commonly recognised that there is a strong and a weak sense of "love" that
is IMPORTANT and fundamental and is captured by the distinctions made in
other languages more straightforwardly to a non-native speaker than they
are in others. "Nelci" and "prami", as well as "moegen" and "lieben", can
be used for the strong and the weak senses of "love" respectively, and it
is *objectively* important not to confuse one with the other, because if
it is, the consequences seem more than merely linguistic. You can be
fond of a person, but you cannot plausibly feel strong affectionate
devotion for potato chips! This is a difference that I think is far deeper
than "being" in a place and "being" an Australian. Similarly,
it is possible that "to do" and "to make" do not objectively or
fundamentally divide up the space of the word "hacer".

If some distinctions weren't deeper than others, there would seem no point
in learning any other languages to try to expand the mind.

Geoff