Re: to translate or not

On Wed, 2 May 2001, David Peterson wrote:

> In a message dated 5/1/01 9:52:34 PM, dirk.elzinga@M.CC.UTAH.EDU writes:
>
> << This attitude shows remarkably little interest, in and respect
> for the creation of others. If you're not interested in seeing
> how others' languages work, then you really have no call to ask
> them to do translation exercises or belittling them for not
> participating. >>
>
>     I think you missed my point.  It's not the languages I have no interest
> in--it's the cultures.
Then the point is all the more valid. I'm not interested in
creating IALs. Not the tiniest bit. And so I let the CONLANG
threads on IALs go unread. I don't spend my time telling the
IALers what a waste of time it is, or why they should do
something else. To me, it seems that you're doing just that by
discounting Irina's motives for not participating in a
translation exercise. Just because you disagree with her motives
doesn't make them any less real.

> <<You seem to have missed the point. I once attended a concert by
> the King's Singers. One of the encores they performed was an
> arrangement of the Beatles' "Can't buy me love" in the style of
> an Elizabethan madrigal. It was fun to listen to but hardly
> worth taking seriously--the elements were just too incongruous.>>
>
>     Yes, that does seem hardly worth taking seriously.  Does that make it not
> worthwhile?  Do you regret having heard "Can't Buy Me Love"?  I myself have
> heard an operatic version of "She's Got a Ticket to Ride" by some female
> sopranist (I can't remember the name), and let me tell you, though I didn't
> take it seriously, I didn't regret hearing it.
I don't think 'regret' is the right word. As I said, it was fun
to listen to. But judging from the tittering and chuckling in
the audience, no one mistook it for a "serious" piece. If my
intent with Tepa is a "serious" piece, then doing translation
exercises which ultimately detract from the nature of the
language are just not worth doing.

> Why must everything be taken
> so seriously?  I certainly don't take language creation as seriously as
> everyone else, and, thus far, it seems I have a language that's more complete
> than many others I've heard of.
One of the best conlangs I've ever seen was a project called
DiLingo. It was anything but serious. But it wasn't intended to
be serious. I emailed the creator about it, and he said that he
spends up to 14 hours a day in his office (he's a doctor), and
DiLingo was his way to unwind and laugh at himself and others.
It was full of such good humor and lightheartedness that you
couldn't help but like it. It was one of the most well thought
out projects out there.

> Is it as good as some others?  That's a
> matter of opinion, and thus far I've heard no opinions either way.  But I
> really don't sit there and worry about whether or not other people brand my
> language one way or another because it has a word for "God" in it (or "god",
> for that matter).
Nor am I really worried what you think of Tepa (which has no
word for "God" or "god"). I will go on tinkering with it whether
I'm part of the CONLANG community or not. Of course, it's
gratifying to have an audience, but I'll do without if need be;
I did for years before the Internet was available, and I can do
again.

>     Anyway, back to some more basic points.  You say it matters greatly
> whether or not certain words are in a language?  I say it doesn't matter at
> all because you don't even have to record them, if you're just doing a
> translation exercize.
I suppose it comes down to a matter of how you want to spend
your time. I have a full teaching load, and I'm expected to
write grant proposals as well. I have precious little time for
creating words that I'll never use again to describe concepts I
consider alien to the culture my language is a part of. If
you've got time you can spend that way, good for you. I don't.

> You say there are better ways to show off a grammar?
> Well, it looks to me that translation exercizes are the way we show off our
> grammars on this list: Someone puts up a phrase to translate, people
> translate it.
That's one way. Some also write "Teach Yourself ... " texts for
their languages. Some make tourist guides. Some invent stories
or poetry. Others give us raw grammatical description with
example sentences.

> So, I suppose if someone posts something that would be
> offensive to the culture of one of your languages, then you don't have
> translate it--no one's forcing anyone.  So, what's the better way to show off
> a grammar?  I guess you could make up your own translation exercize, making a
> note that the current one is offensive or incomprehensible to the nonexistant
> speakers of a language only you know.  That's fine.  Is it necessary to post
> messages of the like, though?
Well, I have to agree with you there. However, I didn't read
Irina's message that way. I don't think she intended it that
way, either.

> This is conlang, not conculture (and there's a
> definite reason why I'm not a part of the latter).
So you create grammars the way someone might play with a loop of
string to see what figures can be made? I think most of us
engage in that kind of doodling--nothing wrong with that. I do
it as well (or have done it--see remarks above about free time),
but I usually don't burden the list with it.

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga                          dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu

"The strong craving for a simple formula
has been the undoing of linguists."               - Edward Sapir

Reply