LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  June 2012, Week 3

CONLANG June 2012, Week 3

Subject:

Re: Ot: Language Envy and Language Pride

From:

Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:35:06 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (189 lines)

--- On Sun, 6/17/12, Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Ot: Language Envy and Language Pride
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, June 17, 2012, 7:55 PM
> > Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:24:19
> -0700
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Ot: Language Envy and Language Pride
> > To: [log in to unmask]
>  
> > --- On Sat, 6/16/12, Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> > > Oh, *you* said that. Sorry. 
> 
> What I meant here, was: "Oh, Padraic said that (which I did
> not attribute properly in my original post, a caveat which I
> placed at the top of my post in an unsuccessful attempt to
> head something like this off at the pass.).  Over the
> course of reading his posts over the years, I have come to
> believe that Padraic and I have a similar frame of reference
> on things and therefore, the quote I responded to should be
> taken in a different light as it would be if it were from
> Andrew, who for me, Douglas, is a relatively unknown
> commodity. So, sorry for the misunderstanding."

Alright, no worries then!

I know later in the post you address Andrew's comments more specifically.
I guess I got a bit out of kilter in being lumped in with a perspective
that I (think obviously, but perhaps not!) don't share. (The whole shame
over what is clearly and obviously God's own bloody language itself! 
;)))))) )

> > Don't be sorry -- I simply never said there *has to be*
> a point! I said "I don't see much point" in a language
> expressing grammatical gender. It's my opinion. I didn't say
> that there "must be a point" in expressing 
> > grammatical gender. That would be an assertion of
> general fact!
>  
> And I never said that you said that there had to be a point.
> Which is why I pulled "pragmatics" into this. To take the
> classic husband and wife scenario:
>  
> Husband: You look lovely tonight, dear. (he thinks he's
> delivering a compliment)
> Wife: Oh, so I look like crap the rest of the time?! (she
> takes it as a critique)
> Husband: I didn't say that....
>  
> and it may take them quite a while speaking very carefully,
> deliberately, and literally before equilibrium is restored,
> assumed mutual understanding resumes, and pragmatics runs at
> its normal pace. When pragmatics go awry, the number of
> sentences like "I didn't say that.", "I never said that."
> and "What I meant was..." goes up considerably.

Touché there! 

> > Well, if you believe there must be a point, 
>  
> I do not. I think we actually agree here. 

Yes indeed!

> > If you can not demonstrate the underlying point (as can
> not be done with
> > grammatical gender), then leave the other person's
> opinion stand as the
> > opinion it is and certainly don't try to tell him he
> said something he 
> > didn't say!
>  
> If my post read that way. I apologize. When throwaway lines
> misbehave...

Sounds like a cheap video title...

> > > So, if grammatical gender offends thee, 
> 
> > Seriously, you're reading fár too much into the simple
> opinion "I don't 
> > much care for"! I don't much care for the taste of
> coffee either. I am
> > nowhere close to being "offended" by it, or by coffee
> drinkers, or by
> > coffee growers / importers / marketers / baristas.
>  
> I did not mean "thee", Padraic, here. The generic "you" of
> conversational English was my intent. Perhaps if I had said
> "one".

Yeah -- I took the thee to be the me! Being a frequent user of the 2s
pronoun myself, I thought you playing off that. Seems we got our wires
well and truly tangled!

> > > smite it in your conlang
> > > project (this is not Padraic's argument, so I am
> neither
> > > rebutting nor setting him up as my straw man). But
> as for
> > > natlangs, the point is moot if you care to think
> there is a
> > > point to there being a point about such things
> (which is all
> > > I was saying). You can rail against it all you
> like like you
> > > can rail against the human appendix. Good luck
> with
> > > that. 
> 
> > Again, I'm not railing against anything! Although, I
> might start railing
> > against your insistence that I'm "offended" or "railing
> against" some
> > feature of any given language, when this is simply not
> the case!
> 
> *One* can rail all one likes . If *one* is "offended"
> (itself a bit of schtick riffing on Bible language (if thine
> eye offend thee, pluck it out), not literally "offended")...

Right. Mind you, I might just smite this whole gender thing in a conlang
yet!

> When pragmatics begins to break down (as it obviously has
> here), *one* has to wend *one's* way back (actually, *I* was
> trying to wend *my* way back to yes, and clearly failing
> miserably). Indeed, there is no argument. I meant that
> pragmatics was faltering. Appearances apparently to the
> contrary, I was actually agreeing with you. And with that,
> I'll quit digging myself in further and quit while I'm
> behind.

Well, let's both take up the spade then and start digging us out!

> > Could be -- I didn't catch his response to karate or
> chutney.
> 
> He did not respond. But *after* I sent my post I seemed to
> remember him saying in a post *before* mine that loans were
> okay if the concepts were not already in anglophone culture.

Well, that certainly makes sense, and in that I would certainly agree with
his keeping such loans in his constructed English.

> > But as far as chutney is concerned -- that word doés
> come from a country
> > that speaks English! India has its own kind of English,
> and chutney is
> > certainly a regular part of the English language menu
> there, so I'm not
> > sure how that and other particularly Indian English
> terms might fit in
> > with his ideas on borrowing. After all, if American
> English borrows 
> > chutney from Indian English, is it really that foreign
> a borrowing? 
>  
> Not the best example certainly. I thought "chutney" hailed
> from Sanskrit. 

Oh, I'm sure the word itself is not a Germanic one, and does indeed have
Sanskrit roots. The Font of All Knowledge tells us that it derives from
Skt. caṭnī, "a term for a class of spicy preparations used as an 
accompaniment for a main dish." 

> I have visions of a pith-helmet wearing
> Britisher saying, "I say, right tasty, this. What do you
> call it?" "We call it 'catnï', sir." "'Chutney', is it?
> Jolly good." 
>  
> Maybe "kimchee" would have been better.

Better tasting or better borrowing? :P

Padraic

> Kou






Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=104). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager