Re: Lurkers

On 21 April, yl-ruil wrote:


To all our Lurkers:

Not everybody who doesn't post every day considers himself/herself
a lurker. 

I'm not trying to be offensive; I honestly don't understand. Why lurk? Don't you
feel like you want to join in with all the arguments (whoops! civilised
debates).

Speaking for myself, of course I do. When I don't, the reasons include:

    1. By the time I read the postings, I find that what I might have said
        has already been said by other people. Sometimes more than one.
        I see no reason to add to the already overburdened list merely to
        say "I agree" and nothing more.
    2. Many times the discussion requires a detailed knowledge (and
        not only in the subject of linguistics) that I do not possess.
        I see no reason to clog things up with _multiple_ postings
        demanding detailed background info on every point that I have
        no knowledge of so that, just maybe, I can form an opinion
        in order to send something, _anything_, just so I can't be
        said to be lurking.
    3. Sometimes I simply don't have the time to read all the posts.
    4. Sometimes I don't have the time to reply to posts I _have_ read.
        
    In short, there are those of us who do not lurk full-time and who
_do_  post to the list when we have something to add to the discussion. 
   

 What do you actually do, just read all the postings?

And what's wrong with that?  You know, this reminds me of
something I learned in Anthropology class many years ago
about a certain Native American tribe (I forget which).
It seems that an anthropologist was at the home of his
informant on the Reservation, when suddenly an Indian opened
up the door, walked in, and without a word, sat himself down
by the fire. After a while he got up, again without a word, and left.
The anthropologist was appalled, first by the intruder's actions
and second by his informant's not doing anything about it.
Upon asking his informant why he wasn't as upset as he (the anthropologist)
was, he said that the man was a cousin of his, who lived quite far away.
Apparently the cousin had needed to be with him, and so had travelled the long
distance and had come to visit. But it wasn't conversation he had needed, but
simply to feel his cousin's presence. Having satisfied himself on that
account, he had had no more need to be with his cousin and so he  had left.
The informant explained that among his people, conversation is not
always necessary, and not only was he not bothered by his cousin's
actions, he was pleased that the man had come; again no words were
needed.
    Yes, I realize that we conlangers are a very verbal bunch (by definition :-) ) .
And yet, if  sometimes some merely want to sit by the fire and
bask  silently in the presence of those they have come to see, I can
understand them. Speaking for myself, I can even be pleased that
they bothered to come, even if silently.

Dan Sulani

--------------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.

A word is an awesome thing.