Re: LeGuin was Re: Introduction

----- Original Message -----
From: "Amanda Babcock" <langs@...>

> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 01:01:02PM -0500, Sally Caves wrote:
>
> > Ursula Le Guin is said to be a conlanger, but
> > I have reservations about that, despite some of the linguistic
information
> > she gives about the invented words in some of her novels.  I read an
article
> > in which she was interviewed twenty-five years ago (so she might have
> > changed over the years)
>
> "Always Coming Home" was her only conlanged book.  It was published in
1985,
> which would be 8 years after that interview...
Okay...  I stand corrected.  This is terrific.  We can add her to the list
of women conlangers!  But I have always felt that Le Guin's first priority
was her novel writing and not any invented language.  In this, she differs
from Tolkien, whose language making came before he published the novels to
convey it.  It seems, though, that Le Guin has spent quite a bit more time
developing this language for this book, so, yes, she is a conlanger.  But a
more notable and versatile author (than she is a conlanger), AND ("...than
Tolkien is/was."  I say this despite the accolades bestowed on Tolkien as
"Author of the Century."  Le Guin will always be more versatile and dazzling
IMHO as a fiction/writer than Tolkien.)

Many writers of invented cultures content themselves with the mere sketch of
a language, and enough vocabulary to convey what they need, to name their
places, their people, their magic.  It struck me from the article I read
that Le Guin was such a writer, but now it seems that she has flexed her
glossopoeic skills.  This doesn't surprise me.  She is a mythopoeist.  The
two often go together.  And she had anthropologist parents; she comes from a
very learned background, and it shows in her fiction.

> > _Always Coming Home_ may represent a more involved use of conlanging on
> > her part.  I know that the novel has some linguistic notes at the end of
it,
>
> That's not the half of it... it came with a cassette tape with songs sung
> in the language (I can still sing most of them) and poetry.
Hmm.  My book didn't come with a cassette. :-(  I can't even find it.  Does
she sing the songs herself?

  There was a
> rather extensive dictionary in the back, and a brief grammar overview.
It depends on what you mean by "rather extensive."   I'll have to get the
book you got, with the cassettes.  And I'll have to find my book, which I
didn't finish before I lost it.  I believe that Amman-Iar boasts something
like ten thousand words, and David Bell has the glossary to prove it.  If
it's not David Bell, then I can't remember who it is with such a developed
conlang (John Fisher's Elet Anta?).  Tokana (also invented for a conculture
that takes place in an alternate world located somewhere on the Pacific
Coast) comes with an admirably detailed grammar, and another extensive
vocabulary, and whose author, Professor Matt Pearson, has devoted years to
its making.

>  I
> wrote her a letter with a sentence in her language on the envelope,
"Please
> listen to my words" I think it was[1], and she responded with the
grammatical
> information I'd been wondering about :)  It's at least as much of a
conlang
> as many of our efforts.
I can appreciate the fact that all of us are at different levels in this
pursuit.  And this is a marvelous story, Amanda!  But did she respond in her
language?  Did you write your request in her language?  (I mean not just on
the envelope.)  Did you have the words for "verb, grammar, wondering, would
like to know" from this glossary of hers?

> [1] The language was therefore successfully used for practical
communication
> between two people, something many of us can't say :)
....can't say that our languages do?   Can't say that you've done in your
language?  But Amanda, we communicate in small ways to each other all the
time through our separate languages.  Several of my friends here know what I
mean when I say "Yry firrimby."  I've had brief communiques sent to me in
Teonaht.  It can happen.  That is, if we're here to learn also about each
other's languages, instead of posting AFMCL all the time (old conlang for
"As For MY ConLang...").  An exchange like the one you describe could happen
between your language and mine, if any of us took the interest to do it.
We've had Conlang Relay Exchanges.  We post extensive websites detailing
grammar and usage.  You and I could have a "practical communication," too,
if we took the time to learn something about each other's conlang.  I don't
know.  Maybe it wouldn't be practical.   (Yes, computer, I know I have new
mail!)

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 (the stable master, the manure to be
shoveled, the horse shoes to be collected and tossed, the teabag to be
dispensed with, the phone cord to be untangled, the knitting needles put
away, the china cabinet to be mended, the toaster oven to be unplugged, the
sleepy sand to be gotten out of the eyes, the cholesterol to be watched, the
spark plugs to be replaced, the clutch to be released, the high rises going
up across the street, the braces to be worn, the plaque to be got out from
under my gums, the burglar alarm to be set, reliqua reliqua reliqua).  And
then, who will I be saying any of this to, except myself?   It's far harder
than--or let's say far different from (Teonaht has the useful alterative
along with the equative, comparative, and superlative!)-- than learning a
natural language that already has a well-developed vocabulary and a host of
speakers who will correct you.

Because the truth of what we do here is very mysterious.  We are inventing
languages that are not "practical" spoken languages, and it is hard to know
what they are instead.  That was the intent of the Survey.  To see how we
felt about doing what we do for probably only ourselves.  And to find out
*what* it is that we do and why we do it.  Invent away, chart it, find
jewels for your glossary, sing in it, cast out demons in it--unless two
people can communicate in it without effort it cannot claim the status of
even Klingon.  Look at that poor Voynich Manuscript, the key lost if there
even was one!  Tolkien himself said as much in his "A Secret Vice."  "It can
have no real circulation in the world," he wrote, or words to that effect,
"that will enrich it."

No one will be married in Teonaht, or speak Teonaht to their child and make
it his first language, unless I acquire some kind of cult status that
Klingon has.  Or the kind of fame and charisma that Le Guin has. :)   Gotta
get that novel done.  Gotta get that novel done.  Gotta get that novel done.
Gotta get that...

Maybe we should issue new challenges to one another besides the extremely
popular Conlang Relay Game.  Maybe we should be doing more with each other
what Amanda did with Ms. Le Guin.  For those of you who've taken an interest
in Teonaht, I'm blown away.  I'd like to return the favor, if there were
world and time!  I have two paper editions of grammars: one is Padraic
Brown's Kernu, carefully handbound, and another is Matt Pearson's Tokana.
With the survey, I'll be able to see who has what up.  I'd also appreciate
it if people would tell me what links need updating on my mainpage.  I've
got Aidan down for Aelya on my Teonaht main page, and a number of broken
links.

    http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonaht.html

THEN, having perused some of these, we can compare Le Guin's workable
language to the efforts made by the people in our own conlang back yards.  I
understand that I must alter my original opinion of the extent to which she
has taken her conlanging.  But I'm not overawed yet.  I've seen some
prodigious stuff.

> > but I'm
> > still not convinced that she is as compulsively dedicated as some of the
> > rest of us are to the nitty gritty details of our inventions.  I, for
one,
> > have been working on Teonaht for almost forty years; it's like a nursing
a
> > child that will never quite grow up.
>
> True, it didn't seem to have the depth of Tolkien's languages, with their
> long evolution, both synchronic and diachronic.  True, she didn't make a
> lifetime project of it.  But her language was a lot more mature than 90%
> of the ones I've made up! :)  (Heck, it has everyday words in it so it's
> more useful even than my two main ones.)
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. Did you mean that unlike us
she had the sanity to stop working on it? <G>

> Perhaps she *wasn't* as enamoured of the process as we are.  Maybe
> she saw the end and not the means as the goal.
What are the ends?

> But what's published is
> a workable language,
And I would still challenge you on your choice of words.  At least let me
look at the glossary.

> (One of the songs:
>
> A weyewey heyiya a, na-am, na-am; gewakwasur weheyiya, na-am, na-am.
> Om, o na-am (wisuyu, wisuyu, wisuyu); wisuyusur.  Weheyiya!  Om o na-am,
> om o na-am, om o na-am.
>
> Oh everything is holy, by the river, by the river; we dance holy-ly, by
> the river, by the river.  Down by the river (willows, willows, willows);
> we are willows.  Holy-ly!  Down by the river, down by the river, down
> by the river.
>
> Postpositional and somewhat agglutinative.)
Somewhat repetitive, too, which eases production of  a comprehensive
lexicon.  Listen to me!  It's actually lovely.  It could be a lullaby!
Ailly!!!  Celil levitil aiba, ry twyka bovin!  Yry eftoihs!  Y hdar
vilrravo?  Vaihhyn!

("Eek!  As for me, I blue a bit tonight-- i.e., getting ornery, sniffish,
"blue," out of sorts.  My apologies.  Me envious?  Not a chance!")


Sally Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
"My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teoreal2.html

Replies