Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: [wolfrunners] Languages & SF/F (fwd)

From:Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...>
Date:Monday, August 21, 2000, 2:34
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:

> From: "Yoon Ha Lee" > > > >1) "Languages", as such, do not exist. When we say we are speaking > English, > > what we >are really saying is that the kinds of speech we are using are > > similar enough to allow >mutual intelligibility. In fact, we all speak > > slightly differently, with our own forms of >language that themselves are > > different from one point in time to another. > > > There seems to be a philosophical/practical schism about translation here > > which is utterly fascinating. Yoon Ha's comments state the philosophical > > dilemma that "direct translations are nearly impossible." You refute with > > > Pardon--that wasn't *my* comment, that was the comment of the person > > whose post I forwarded, who was responding to something I had said. Just > > for the record--though I do agree with it in spirit. > > This wasn't my intention. *You* said (citing your Russian teacher):
No--the passage below was written by someone else in response to a message I wrote. Forwarded message, but I deleted the original (and the conlang copy). The message appeared as "from me," but the person who *wrote* it was someone else. I just wanted to be clear on that. I think it may have been Sara who wrote the below.
> > > My Russian teacher really tried to impress on us that you can't always > > > directly translate words. For an example, she would write Russian words > > > up on the board and give the English "equivalent". *Then* she would tell > > > us what the word *really* means--all the connotations and nuances that > > > come from being a Russian. Direct translations are nearly impossible. > > So when I say "Yoon Ha's comment", I refer to the comment about what your > Russian teacher was trying to demonstrate. Whether you agree with her or not > is your business, but that's what I was addressing (and quoting). The number > of >'s seemed to indicate that it was something you were citing directly and > not something you were responding to. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
But I haven't even taken Russian. That was Sara's comment, in a message I forwarded. I did write some material in the forward, but I was responding to her post, so there was her material and mine (if I'm remembering the correct post). YHL