File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1998/phillitcrit.9802, message 62


Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:15:05 -0600
From: George Trail <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PLC: Enameled In Fire


>> And of course enamel can mean any hard glossy paint.
>>  g
>
>That's a secondary meaning. It actually means glass fused to metal by use of
>heat. That's where the fire comes in.


Begging your pardon, Ma'am, but translators are not restricted to "primary"
meaings (which term, by the bye, no linguist nor lexicographer would
accept). Further, if one reads the line, it says the the object is enameled
_with_ fire, not "by means of fire" but that the fire itself is the surface
with which it is enameled.

I would accept the argument that the text is ambiguous, but  are argue that
the writer in question would not be, as you would have him, redundant (not
to mention, trite).

This ain't paint. This is words about paint. Words are what I do. Don't use
words like "actually" when you talk about meaning.
g




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005