Re: Language X within scope of language Y

Also, because words get adopted over time, and become "more and more"
considered a natural part of the language. Is "conversation" English? Is
"ambiance"? Is " façade"? Is "faux pas"? If you take the view that if they
are found in common English dictionaries, then yes, they are. Each of them
was originally from French, but now are part of English. On the other hand,
"Vierwaldstätterseeschifffahrtsgesellschaft" is not (yet).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <>
To: <>; <>;
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 13:17
Subject: RE: Language X within scope of language Y

> > From: John Cowan []
> > > I'm not familiar with that work, but certainly "Das Kapital" is
> > > German even if I refer to it in an English conversation; "Capital"
> > > would be English. (/dæs kʰæpɪɾɫ̩/ would be German spoken with
> > > an American English accent.)
> >
> > It's not clear what you refer to when you refer to it, though.  All the
> > translations I have ever seen are entitled "Capital", so presumably when
> > you refer to it, you refer to the ur-book which is language independent.
> The relevant issue you're hitting on is that titles can cross the line
from a linguistic expression that happens to denote an object to become a
*name*, names having a measure of language independence that general
linguistic expressions typically do not have.
> Peter Constable

Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:59:28 UTC