Re: Láadan

In a message dated 11/27/2002 9:49:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ian Maxwell 
(umlaut@DISCOMMUNITY.ORG) writes:


> "Doug Dee wrote:
> > *
> > Which features of Laadan gave you the impression of mean-spiritedness?
> >
> > Dou
> 
> I think one thing that gave me that idea was the evidential marker for
> "assumed to be false because speaker distrusts source". There was also
> the use of the sound /K/, described as follows: "t is a sound with a
> hissing quality, and is not especially pleasant to hear. In Láadan it
> occurs only in words that are themselves references to something
> unpleasant, and can be added to words to give them a negative meaning."
> (That general idea aside, I happen to *like* lateral fricatives, and
> don't really like someone telling me as a matter of fact that they are
> unpleasant.) There was also, in the list of honorifics, a "dishonorific"
> meaning that the referent is despised."
> 
I think Elgin borrowed that use of the voiceless lateral fricative from 
Navajo.  So it's not entirely her fault; blame the Navajo. :-)

Although the "distrusts source" evidential and the "dishonorific" pronouns 
could be said to "grammaticalize meanspiritedness" (as you put it earlier), I 
don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, because I don't think it's 
intended to promote or endorse meanspiritedness.  It's the reverse, really.  
Elgin has noted (I forget exactly where) that hostility in English is largely 
expressed through tone of voice, which is very convenient for those who like 
to verbally abuse others and awkward for their victims.  I can say hostile 
things to someone (relying on tone of voice to indicate hostility) and then 
afterwards deny it by saying "But all I SAID was . . ." followed by repeating 
whatever I said, this time in a non-hostile tone.  In Laadan, I gather, the 
point is to require the speaker to put such attitudes overtly into the 
grammar of the utterance, where they aren't easily deniable.  The hope, 
apparently, is that it will be harder to abuse people -- or at least harder 
to duck responsibility for doing so.  It's an attempt to make a kinder & 
gentler language, I'd say.


> "Aside from that tone, there was also the lovely evidential meaning
> "Perceived by speaker in a dream". Personally, I don't think women are
> any more prone to superstition regarding dreams than men, but apparently
> Elgin disagrees with me."
> 

I don't think _everything_ in Laadan is supposed to reflect women's 
attitudes, and "superstition" seems like a biased term.  Many cultures have 
placed value on information, prophecies etc. received in dreams, and it seems 
harmless enough to provide an evidential for that.  (And the listener can use 
this evidential as a handy cue to indicate "I don't have to take this 
seriously; the speaker is a superstitious person who got this alleged 
information through a dream.")

> "It seems the overall effect of Láadan in use is to include a lot more of
> the speaker's personal opinions and attitudes in a given utterance or
> writing than do most (though probably not all) natural languages. The
> upshoot of this is that the only way to be civil to someone you dislike
> is to lie outright. "Hello, Mike-the-despised" just doesn't work.
> 
> - Ian Maxwell"
> 
I think it might be more accurate to say "include _explicitly_ a lot more of 
the speaker's personal opinions," as opposed to including them covertly by 
tone of voice or the like.  And it might show things in a different light to 
turn your last statement around and say "the only way to be UNcivil to 
someone you dislike is to do so overtly, rather than doing so sneakily and 
preserving your deniability."  If a Laadan speaker going to be nasty, 
(s)he'll have to take responsibility for it.

I think the overall intention, then, is the opposite of meanspirited.  How 
well it would work in practice in a Laadan-speaking community, I can't say.

Doug

Reply