When an infant begins to learn language, it usually starts with the infant making sounds associated with needs, leads to practicing in the form of "cooing," then leads to babbling: simply exercising the possibilities of sound production. It is only when the child discovers that certain productions have meaning does the child actually is said to possess language. That child language is almost immediately expressed in a generative model that expands in production capability through a transformational process. By the fourth or fifth year, children begin to have the capability of further both recognizing and expressing that language in written script form. The key to both language development in general, but especially in written form, is the meaning of the words--or groupings of words--especially with a pictorial referent.
I'm supposing that whenever one is trying to translate between languages, there is a slippage of cross language meanings (or referents), but, in modern languages, those slippage troughs are relatively easy to bridge over and cross. It would seem to me that those slippage troughs become like the Grand Canyon, and bridges are nearly impossible to build. How do you discern the contextual meaning and resulting linguistic structure of an ancient language sufficiently to build one of those bridges? How do you know whether or not you've succeeded?
It seems almost impossible to me.
|Very basic question about translations||1801||drrayeye||11-Aug-17 21:44|
|Re: Very basic question about translations||432||MDaines||12-Aug-17 09:30|
|Consider the biological foundations||347||drrayeye||14-Aug-17 00:13|
|Re: Consider the biological foundations||325||MDaines||14-Aug-17 08:19|
|Re: Addendum||315||cladking||21-Aug-17 17:43|
|Re: Addendum to the addendum||718||MDaines||21-Aug-17 18:05|
|Re: Consider the biological foundations||378||cladking||14-Aug-17 14:07|