4 ms·
While I agree with your admiration of the versatility and power of CJK languages, I don't think the particular aspect you're commenting on is specific to those.
by Kliment 6y ago
While I agree with your admiration of the versatility and power of CJK languages, I don't think the particular aspect you're commenting on is specific to those. You see this in many western languages too. Here's an example in English. Take the word "pot". It can be a container, it can be a plant, it can be a drug, it can be a dish (pot roast), it can be an electronic component (short for potentiometer). Things can "go to pot". Someone might be told to "shit or get off the pot" when they are indecisive. The meaning depends on context. Some of these meanings are related, some are not. Yet it's all the same word. It has some meanings that are shared across different anglophone cultures, and some that are specific to one or several. There are many other words like that, and you find things like this in almost every language family.
- smogcutter 6y agoFor example, “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo” is a valid English sentence.
- naniwaduni 6y agoSyntactically defensible, sure. But what anglophone not seeking to deliberately confuse an interlocutor would call bison from upstate New York "Buffalo buffalo"? What action could such bison perform on other bison that can reasonably be construed as "buffaloing"? Semantics and pragmatics are part of the language, too.