On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 22:36, J.A. Magallon wrote: > > > The Eskimos, so I'm told, have 16 words for snow, because it's important > > > to them. > > > > Urban myth. > > > > http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_297 > > (Disclaimer: from now, everywhere I say 'is', I mean 'IMHO, i think'...) > > I found that article stupid. It is mixing two things: calling 'snow' in > different situations by different names, and calling with different words > different things made of snow. In fact, Eskimos have many words just for > snow (plain snow, falling snow, snow on the ground, and sure many more > the writer does not know). It claims that english is also so rich, > and tries to convice us that snow, flake and avalanche are refering to > the same thing... > > He should admit that each langage is richer that other in certain fields. > For example, spanish has 'libre' and 'gratis', and english just has 'free'. > Or spanish has 'ser' (have a quality) and 'estar' (be located at), > and english just has 'be' (so does Catalan, it also does not ditinguish > between 'ser' and 'estar'). And I have also found words that have more > rich forms in english than in spanish (can, may vs 'poder'). > > In this context, I would be happy about the adoption of terms like > 'Free Soft' and 'Gratis Soft' (reverse the order to make english > people happy...) > > Sorry, couldn't resist. And forgive me for my English. ;)
Also read the follow-up article. There's a link at the bottom. -- adamw
