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