What about ‘have’?
The word falls wrongly upon my ear. As in, I have… (sorry bout the lingual pollution)
Also, something jarred me about talking in a constant present tense. Did anyone else think that?
Yeah, I think the main problem with have is that it implies ownership. I have a dog, or I have five friends, in both cases, have means posses, but their is a difference, at least in our meaning. I think have is alright if it is reciprocal ownership, but I think the problem is that people would never accept a dog “having” a human.
I don’t quite get what you’re asking.
heh, I always refer to instead of say, the cat that lived here, as I have a cat, I tend to think of it more in, that cat has me. It just makes more sense, the cat is it’s own, but it has me for support. I think this works in every situation though, instead of that’s mine, or I have such in such, I tend to think that such and such has me. My friends have me, the land has me, my family has me, etc.
Fenris, that’s a totally fantastic way to consider one’s life. (I almost said “new way” but then I realized it’s actually a very old way.)
The world has me … I belong to the world.
My stuff … has me. My student loans … have me. >:( But then, my family … has me. And the seasons … have me. And the forest has me!
Gee, I feel so secure.
!
In Japan we say “katteiru” which means more like “raising” or “taking care of”. BUT, it is a word reserved for raising animals. You would never use it in reference to raising a child.
I had never really thought about it, but it would sound really strange to any Japanese people to use the direct translation of “to have” in reference to the cockatiels we are taking care of. It is NOT strange, however, to use the term for raising that is usually used for children… and now that I think about it, plants as well.
I wonder why that is. Good questions to keep me from sleeping tonight.
Thanks, bastish! And welcome!
When you get the time, please introduce yourself. It’s a good place for telling the story of how you came to rewilding.
-Rebecca
In Quechua (highland Quechua of Peru and Bolivia) rather than a verb “to have” something, the phrase (for lack of a better translation) is “it sits with me.” (The verb tiyay has more layers of meaning than “sit,” but that is the easiest way to convey it in English.)
In Chinuk Wawa too, you don’t “have” a dog; the dog “sits with” (mitlayt kupa) you. I think this goes for anything you can’t hold in your hand.