Re: LeGuin was Re: Introduction

On 11 Jan, Sally Caves wrote:

<snip a lot of good stuff>

> Okay, see me delve into another AFMCL:  I want to develop Teonaht to the
> point where I can say just about anything in it without effort.  But that
> will never happen, because I will die first before I can reach into it and
> not find that some expression or item of vocabulary is missing and has to
> be constantly invented  or refined ...
        I dunno, Sally. I don't think it's right to be so pessimistic!
IMHO, it all depends upon what you want to say. IME,
one whole lot of what people say to each other is cliche anyhow;
and what isn't cliche doesn't demand a huge vocabulary.
(You know: the weather, the local politics, sports results, etc.)
    I have found that, even in my native lang (English), I can't
"say just about anything in it without effort". Not if I want to discuss
topics about which I am not familiar! I first have to acquire
the words/technical-jargon!
    In a second lang (such as my mastery of Hebrew), I find myself
regularly at a loss for words (and even more if I try to discuss
something outside my usual routine!). I accept this as all part of
what speaking a natlang is like.
    You might say that, yes --- the _speaker_ doesn't have the words
_yet_,  but the lang certainly does! Well, yes and no. When a culture
meets up with new phenomena, words do _not_ exist! To cope, they are
either borrowed from some other lang, or --- yes--- invented!
(And --- [in Israel at least] even the existence of a formal Language
Academy does not stop _individuals_ from coining words and phrases
when they are needed! Conlangers just coin more of them!)
Modern Israeli Hebrew has done quite a bit of both! All langs have
done it as required. No-one could reasonably expect a natlang
at a given stage of development to have words for  _all_
possible phenomena! Why should conlangs be different?
    AFMCL-P  (as for my conlang philosophy) , I think that lacking
conlang words for things other than routine subjects, (whatever they are
for each particular conlanger) and thus needing
to continually create them, is par for the course for someone who
wishes to talk about (or potentially talk about)
subjects outside the realm of the routine, and not anything to feel "down
about!

<snip>
>... than learning a
> natural language that already has a well-developed vocabulary and a host
> of speakers who will correct you.
    Although correction by hosts of speakers was a major factor in my
acquiring fluency in "day-to-day" "street" Hebrew, it still comes down to
what you want to say and who you hang out with!
Ever try to get the vocabulary for high literary/poetic criticsm
by chatting about it in a Middle-Eastern shuk? Me neither!
(I acquired a whole lot of _other_ vocabulary there!  ;-)    )
Given the type of people one associates with and
what one would like to be able to discuss,
a "host of speakers who will correct you" may or may not exist.


<snip>

> Be patient, Amanda.  And allow yourself to be a little mad!  <G>
>
> > The only fault I can see here is that she had the temerity to *complete*
> > it :)
>
> No one person "completes" an invented language.
Exactly my point!


    BTW,  my copy of "Always Coming Home" (paperback,
Bantam Spectra, 1987) claims to have the same
complete text as the hardcover (albeit in a different typeface)
and does contain  the info about writtten Kesh and the glossary.
Regarding the tape, it says that it's available for buying
from Valley Productions [at least it was in 1987]

Dan Sulani
----------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a

A word is an awesome thing.