Post by account_disabled on Dec 20, 2023 22:27:05 GMT -5
When you write a story you have to measure the words . If it is true that all Italian words are part of the Italian language, it is also - and above all - true that not all of them are the same age. Every writer must be careful about the words he uses , because not all of them can fit the story he is writing. It is therefore important that, before using one, the writer answers a series of questions. When did the word appear in the Italian language? In a story set in the 1980s I used the word “metastasis”. However, I had doubts whether it was more recent and I went to check it in the dictionary.
The word dates back to 1665. It would not have been correct, therefore, in a story set in 1300. The concept of metastasis did not exist at that time. In my case that term was a condition talked about in the story, a concept expressed by the characters in the story. Is the word spoken by the narrator or by the characters? In a story it is important to Special Data differentiate the narrator and the characters. Making a monk from the 14th century pronounce the word "metastasis" would be a serious mistake. But if the narrator described the Inquisition as "a metastasis that doesn't stop", the situation, in my opinion, changes. The word indicates something that exists, but which has not yet been given a name. A character therefore cannot pronounce it, because he does not know it, but the narrator can use it because he is still describing something real.
It would be different if the narrator said “The monk fled the abbey as fast as a supersonic plane”. The discordance is very evident. In the 1300s there were no supersonic airplanes. Is the word part of the world described or is it used as a simile? The issue becomes more delicate, because the difference may not be so easy. In the sentence mentioned above, in which the narrator referred to the Inquisition as "a metastasis that does not stop", the word is used as a simple simile by the narrator. If instead the narrator had written: "The monk, visiting the sick novice, found a metastasis extending throughout the body", he would have made a mistake. The monk, no matter how good a doctor he may have been in 1300, could not find something that exists but that no one has yet indicated with that term.
The word dates back to 1665. It would not have been correct, therefore, in a story set in 1300. The concept of metastasis did not exist at that time. In my case that term was a condition talked about in the story, a concept expressed by the characters in the story. Is the word spoken by the narrator or by the characters? In a story it is important to Special Data differentiate the narrator and the characters. Making a monk from the 14th century pronounce the word "metastasis" would be a serious mistake. But if the narrator described the Inquisition as "a metastasis that doesn't stop", the situation, in my opinion, changes. The word indicates something that exists, but which has not yet been given a name. A character therefore cannot pronounce it, because he does not know it, but the narrator can use it because he is still describing something real.
It would be different if the narrator said “The monk fled the abbey as fast as a supersonic plane”. The discordance is very evident. In the 1300s there were no supersonic airplanes. Is the word part of the world described or is it used as a simile? The issue becomes more delicate, because the difference may not be so easy. In the sentence mentioned above, in which the narrator referred to the Inquisition as "a metastasis that does not stop", the word is used as a simple simile by the narrator. If instead the narrator had written: "The monk, visiting the sick novice, found a metastasis extending throughout the body", he would have made a mistake. The monk, no matter how good a doctor he may have been in 1300, could not find something that exists but that no one has yet indicated with that term.