Re: ,Language' in language name?

In a message dated 11/28/01 4:54:12 PM, agricola@WAM.UMD.EDU writes:

>Am 27.11.01, Josh Roth yscrifef:
>
>> >> My own projects often start with an "external" name assigned to it,
>> >> especially as long as it's little more than a cloud of ideas
>> >> and I can't say what the fictional speakers call it.
>> >
>> >Which, of course, isn't _really_ a name at all. "Germans" aren't
>> >really German - they're "Deutsch". The external name is only a matter
>> >of convenience - a handy label - for the external observer.
>> >
>> >> Jörg.
>> >
>> >Padraic.
>>
>> I think I disagree. Is a piano not really a piano, because that is not
>what a
>> piano calls itself?
>
>What they call themselves is, of course, unpronounceable by human
>mouths. [We have rather too few strings and dampers and things to
>speak that language!]
That was my intial thought as well, but actually, even the sounds that a
piano does make are not being used to refer to itself - they're just sounds a
piano happens to make, such as the sound of a human coughing or sneezing.

>> "Deutsch" is just as much of a handy label as "German"
>> is. All words are handy, convenient labels, and if we use a word x to
>apply
>> to something, than that thing is x. Or more accurately, that thing is
>> represented by x - and there is a certain group of people represented
>by
>> words including "Deutsch" and "German." I don't see what makes one term
>real
>> and another one not.
>> Or am I misunderstanding you?
>
>Possibly. We're talking about "external labels" we apply to our
>conlangs / concultures. To me, at least, that name isn't as potent
>or "real" as the Name given by the conpeople themselves. I suspect
>Irina was pleased as punch to find out _at last_ what Valdyans call
>their own language. I had wondered why Kerno stuck out like a sore
>thumb in the midst of *brit- derived names all around; and was happy,
>or at least satisfied to at last discover the truth.
>
>I agree that all these names are just labels - but to my way of
>looking at things, the labels given by the people concerned are of a
>different order than those applied by outsiders. This viewpoint is
>derived from my philosophy of conlanging: that of discovery, not
>creation. I can't just sit down and say "these people I shall call
>'Dacridations'" on a whim. I have to visualise them, look around,
>explore and ask them what they call themselves. Just a minor
>misunderstanding, I think!
>
>> Josh Roth
>
>Padraic.
>--
>Bethez gwaz vaz ha leal.
I think I understand ... you're saying that someone's own name for themself
is more interesting and significant than an outsider's. I was also pleased
when I found out what the Eloshtans called themselves, even though it was
close to the English - but I don't feel like I should start calling them
"lostok" rather than Eloshtans, or that the latter is not as good. They're
just different words for the same thing, like "guitar" and "guitarra" - each
has its place. But I agree with you pretty much.

Josh Roth
http://members.aol.com/fuscian/eloshtan.html

Reply