åùå îäèí àñïåêò óïîòðåáëåíèÿ
Explanation: Ñîãëàñíà ñî âñåìè ðàçëè÷èÿìè, ïðåäëîæåííûìè ïðåäûäóùèìè îòâå÷àþùèìè, õîòåëà ïðåäëîæèòü åùå îäíî. Ìîæíî ñêàçàòü "artificial smile" - íàòÿíóòàÿ óëûáêà (Webster äàåò òðåòüèì çíà÷åíèåì - unnatural in an affected way... Íåëüçÿ ñêàçàòü "synthetic smile". Artificial óïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ åùå è â ïåðåíîñíîì çíà÷åíèè. Synthetic - àáñîëþòíî êîíêðåòíîå ïîíÿòèå, íå ïðèðîäà ñîçäàëà, ÷åëîâåê ñäåëàë ñ ïîìîùüþ õèì. èëè äðóãîé òåõíîëîãèè. Ïðàâäà, òîò æå Webster äàåò è çíà÷åíèå not genuine, artificial, íî synthetic smile - íå ñëûøàëà, ÷òîáû ãîâîðèëè è íå âèäåëà, ÷òîáû ïèñàëè. Synthetic, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò artificial åùå è äðóãèì çíà÷åíèåì. Åñëè Âû ñêàæåòå artificial languages - ýòî îçíà÷àåò ÷òî-òî òèïà Ýñïåðàíòî, ìàøèííîãî ÿçûêà è ò.ä. - ñîçäàííîå ÷åëîâåêîì íå íà ïðîòÿæåíèè âåêîâîé èñòîðèè (åñòåñòâåííî), à áûñòðî, ñïåöèàëüíî äëÿ êàêîé-òî öåëè, êàê êîíñòðóêòîð. Synthetic language - àáñîëþòíî äðóãîå çíà÷åíèå, ÿçûê, èñïîëüçóþùèé äëÿ ñâÿçè ñëîâ â ïðåäëîæåíèè ôëåêñèè âìåñòî ïîðÿäêà ñëîâ (ñîîòâ., è ñèñòåìó ñêëîíåíèé).
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2002-03-18 14:49:26 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
OH SORRY!!! Didn\'t notice it\'s monolingual!! Same in English: 1/ Artificial smile (figurative sense) - Webster gives it as \"unnatural in an affected way\". You don\'t say \"synthetic smile\". Although Webster gives a meaning for \"synthetic\" - not genuine, artificial. Still, didn\'t see it used in the figurative sense same as \"artificial\". 2/ Artificial languages - \"man-made\" languages. Of course, all of them are man-made, but over the course of centuries, here what it means is something like Esperanto, machine language etc. - something people created quickly, for a specific purpose, using what they THINK are rules of constructing the language. Artificial language is a language which did not evolve naturally - which was created as a Lego set, as a project, on purpose. Now, \"synthetic language\" as opposed to \"analytical language\" - is a language using flexions (and, consequently, a system of declensions) instead of word order to construct sentences. Again, SINCERE APOLOGIES for not noticing immediately it\'s a monolingual question! A sleepless night with a crying baby doesn\'t help...
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2002-03-18 14:56:15 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Forgot a conclusion, of course :). These meanings (as other answerers correctly stated) are overlapping in a lot of aspects of usage. Their usage is different in the aforementioned cases (maybe, somebody will think up of some more). But it\'s not a very big distinction. These two words are synonyms (see Yuri\'s explanation), but not complete synonyms. As most of the synonym pairs, they differ from one another in shades of meaning. I found the two differing shades of meaning supra...
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2002-03-18 18:18:51 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
In answer to the question: How does it compare to the fibres? In no way. The assignment was to compare two words (with a certain context given). Yuri absolutely correctly stated that those words are synonyms. Synonyms (by definition) are words, the meanings of which are close, sometimes overlapping, but differing in certain nuances and shades. The analyses of the differences as related to the context was done before me, and there was no point to second-guess or duplicate what other people have correctly said. I\'m in this forum not to \"strike points\", but to render help and receive help when I need it. Guided by this rationale, I figured that when doing the comparison analysis of two synonyms, we could just as well make this analysis complete, so that we shouldn\'t return to this same subject again, only address other aspects of it - doing it in \"patchwork fashion\". The points that I have made certainly DO NOT RELATE TO FIBRES, and in that John Kinory is absolutely correct. But, I believe that Yuri (who was the first to answer this question, and who answered it absolutely correctly and to the point - and in a context-relevant manner, too) obviously understood my rationale when he generously peer-graded me \"agree\". Again, I\'m not competing for points here. I have all the work I need outside ProZ, but I consider ProZ an invaluable source of advice, and that\'s why I try to give advice as generously as my peers are always giving it to me. And here I just added to the comparison to make the analysis complete, nothing more, nothing else. Fibres can rest in peace...
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2002-03-18 18:21:04 (GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Typo - \"Nothing more, nothing less\".
| |