Re: Láadan

        Ok, this is going to probably be the most belated reply in the history of the
list (7.5 years!), but my excuse is that I didn't join un Dec. '96. Alas, SHE
is not here, but perhaps someone can "channel" her spirit for us. (And let's
not raise the point of whether it is feasible to channel a living spirit. :)

> >Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 09:13:04 -0600
>
> From: ocls@sibylline.com (george elgin, suzette elgin)
>
> >To: conlang@diku.dk
> >Subject: questions
> >
> >
> >First item -- the "sexual act" discussion.
        This, I remember, came up for discussion a year or two ago. Someone (most
likely the esteemed Mr. Cowan) suggested "engulf" as the best English
translation for the word in question. Seems to answer her "Penetrate" ->
"human-male-during-coitus" :: "???" ->"human-female-during-coitus."

> >As a number of you have accurately said, it is possible to say anything at
> >all in any language at all provided you keep talking long enough;
> >absolutely. The problem is that women (I am speaking here of women who use
> >the languages with which I am familiar), trying to talk about things that
> >matter to them, constantly run into the same wall: "Will you PLEASE get to
> >the POINT?"
        This, is suspect, is more of a sociological problem, rather than a linguistic
one. *In general*, American men prefer directness--out with it, lay all the
cards on the table, and be done with it. American women, on the other hand,
prefer to be a little more long-winded. Men get impatient because the women
jabber on. Women get upset because men are so closed-lip. In reality, it's
just a intra-culture clash.

> >As Richard Kenneway says, for a language to serve the needs of
> >its speakers well, it must be possible for them to discuss things that
> >matter to them *easily.*
        In order not to put anyone on the spot, we'll leave the sex business alone.
Outside of that, do any women feel a particular lack in English vocabulary on
a given subject? As conlangers, you of all people ought to best be in tuned
to semantics. I'm genuinely curious. (I'll make a note to ask some of my
other female friends and relatives.)

> >Second issue.... I will try to answer the question about what my
> > intention, goals, etc., were when I first set LAadan loose in the world.
> > I had been asked to review a book on male/female communication by Cheris
> > Kramarae (Women & Men Speaking) for *Language*; in that book I found the
> > "muted group" hypothesis and the information that women from all corners
> > of the world had proposed that existing human languages were inadequate
> > to express their perceptions and were seeking some solution to that
> > inadequacy. I constructed LAadan as a possible solution, and put it into
> > the *Native Tongue* novels. At the same time, I set up a thought
> > experiment, with the following hypothesis: "If it is true that women
> > badly need and want a language constructed to more easily express their
> > perceptions, they will either take up LAadan and use it, or they will
> > decide that LAadan is still inadequate and will -- the example having
> > been set -- construct an alternative to LAadan and use that alternative
> > in its place."
        While I disagree with the hypothesis (as stated previously), I think her
methodology was slightly flawed: for instance, there was little effort to
broadly disseminate the language; a language needs speakers, and the more
speakers, the more likely it is to be taken up. Plus, her vehicle of choice,
a science-fiction novel, may have further hindered its spread;
science-fiction is not exactly the most popular genre among women.


> > I set a ten year limit on the experiment, and constrained
> > it as best I could -- that meant I could not make the experiment public;
> > it meant I had to leave the language strictly alone myself -- I couldn't
> > fool with it and make changes that would have constantly altered the
> > variables ; it meant I could not "promote" the language; it meant I could
> > not have participated in this conlang list and discussed the language....
        But why not? If you are testing a vaccine, you don't leave it off by itself
in its own petrie dish. It needs to be injected into something. By not
promoting it, she virtually guaranteed its rejection. Few people ever heard
about it, and so it never had a chance to reach the critical mass necessary
for a language to "take off." Esperanto, Quenya, and Klingon are all
"popular" precisely because in each case, there was a large distribution of
information.
        Off the subject, but I just realized that both Klingon and Láadan have
exactly the same set of vowels: /I E a o u/. I find the /I/ and /E/ most
interesting, since that is definitely an unusual distribution.

> > Anthony Burgess, very early on, put something in the London
> > *Times* to the effect that "LAadan is a clever idea, but it won't make
> > any difference, because women don't care enough." In terms of the
> > hypothesis as I stated it, he was right.
        I believe him to be correct, but I don't think that her experiement "proved"
it so.

> >My intention was to
> >level the playing field. That is, it was intended to provide women with a
> >resource that men *already have* -- lexical items they could use to
> > discuss things that mattered to them.
        Maxim: if there is a pressing need for a term, one will either be invented or
"de-obscured" in short order, regardless of gender. For instance, raise your
hand if you knew what a "chad" was before the 2000 presidential elections.
        Women have identical resources as men in terms of creating new lexical items;
one does not need to be empowered in order to increase a language's
vocabulary, simply acceptance of the term by other listeners. I suppose you
could argue that this requires some particular power, but it makes no sense
to believe that women cannot invent terms used around other women.

> >About concepts being lexicalized -- being given a surface shape in sound
> > or writing or sign -- if they are "important enough to the culture."
> > You'd need to rephrase that a tad. Concepts are lexicalized in our
> > existing cultures if and only if they are important enough to those who
> > hold the power in the use of language. Senators; presidents;
> > chairpersons; heads of corporations; the persons at the top, in every
> > field.
        Here I have difficulty believing that Elgin, a trained linguist, would fall
for such an obvious falsehood. Language is not "controlled" by those in
power, no matter how hard the Academie Francais tries. Sure, they control
what goes into the French dictionaries, but I'm sure the Francophones will
back me up when I say that the average French speaker doesn't give a frog's
leg for what they say.
        As a counter example, I could list numerous words that origininated within
the African-American community (probably the most disempowered group in
America) that now have mainstream currency. And Russian speakers can attest
to the large influx of words into Russian that originated within the Soviet
penal system. These words were not "approved" in some Orwellian fashion, but
caught on with the broader public and so became incorporated into the broader
culture.
        Really, I'm rather surprised that Elgin affirms one of the first myths to be
attacked in introductory linguistics.

> > My opinion: there are two varieties of English --
> > dominant English and dominated (subordinate) English.
        I don't see this division along gender lines, but rather along class and race
lines, at least here in America.

> > There's no evidence that the genders differ in
> >their expressive capacity. There is a great deal of evidence that the
> >genders differ in power, that that difference has effects upon the
> >language, and that those effects are detrimental to women's ability to
> >adequately express themselves aloud and in writing. Ability to "think" or
> >to handle ideas doesn't enter into this discussion.
        If women can think and handle ideas as well as men, then they can fill
lexical gaps as well as men, without having to go and ask permission. Really,
I am finding this rather insulting to women. I wonder if she still feels that
way.

> >LAadan doesn't lack a word for father -- the word "thul" means
> >"parent" and the male suffic "-id" is available if one wants to specify
> >that the parent is male.
        ...Which is really the only thing that marks it as a woman-centric langauge.
        Well, enough from me. To all you 'Mercians out there, have a tryptophastic
Thanksgiving! May your turkey be plump, your relatives charming, and your
after-dinner nap restful. :)
        :Peter

Replies