Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:22:15 -0500
From Steve Eley:

> Nigel Findley's doing, and that if he *did* create more
> vocabulary, FASA didn't
> buy it from him (or didn't bother to keep it around.) FASA
> doesn't have STAR
> TREK's clout to recruit professional linguists to create
> languages for them.

Allow me to get back to this after I comment on something later.

> I'm looking at it right now. Which words do you think don't
> resemble Gaelic?
> I'd agree that "makkanagee" doesn't sound *as* Gaelic to the
> outside ear as,
> say, "celénit," but then I'm not a student of Gaelic either. I'm
simply a
> bystander who tried to offer a practical solution to an
> impossible request.

The side comment. I don't believe he was trying to slam you or anything...

Okay, back to my Off Topic rant. Your mention of Star Trek reminds me of
something I've often heard and read regarding Klingon. The story goes (and
is likely true), that there are more speakers (most versions say United
States citizens) of Klingon (some variants say something about fluency,
others are more general) than speakers of Esperanto.

To me, this is a terrible shame. To compare a 'language' that was invented
because some hack actor thought of a few 'words' that sounded guttural
enough to be the spoken language of Klingons to a language that was created
to be communicative and accessible by speakers of a broad range of
languages, is appalling. I've got nothing against the rabid Star Trek fans,
but this irks me to no end.

Thankfully, I don't see this happening ever with Sperethiel, but it would
probably still be better than Klingon. :)

Whew, I've been wanting to mention this for a while now. I'll try to bring
it back to Shadowrun later on if it continues, and I can. Thanks!

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-
Message no. 2
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:42:59 EDT
In a message dated 9/22/98 7:23:46 PM, xaos wrote:

>Okay, back to my Off Topic rant. Your mention of Star Trek reminds me of
>something I've often heard and read regarding Klingon. The story goes (and
>is likely true), that there are more speakers (most versions say United
>States citizens) of Klingon (some variants say something about fluency,
>others are more general) than speakers of Esperanto.
>
>
>
>To me, this is a terrible shame. To compare a 'language' that was invented
>because some hack actor thought of a few 'words' that sounded guttural
>enough to be the spoken language of Klingons to a language that was created
>to be communicative and accessible by speakers of a broad range of
>languages, is appalling. I've got nothing against the rabid Star Trek fans,
>but this irks me to no end.
>
Consider it an experiment in linguistics, Xaos. The professional linguist
(name?) who created a full Klingon language did so deliberately to try out
certain theories of verb placement and sentence structure. Speaking as someone
who is (or at least used to be ;-)) bilingual in a non-Indo-European language
(Hebrew), I can say that the differences in basic assumptions really do make
one think a little differently in the other language.

ST
Message no. 3
From: "XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:03:23 -0500
> Consider it an experiment in linguistics, Xaos. The professional linguist
> (name?)

James (Jimmy) Doohan (sp?). Non-professional 'actor'. But I get your point.
You're talking about the person who took the sounds emitted from the show
and for whatever reason (most likely, personal gain, from my cynical point
of view), created a language.

> who created a full Klingon language did so deliberately to try out
> certain theories of verb placement and sentence structure.

Certainly an honorable goal, but I'm skeptical. I don't even think I could
comment on the motivations of the fan who dresses in Klingon garb and has
created a character for others to interact with.

> Speaking as someone
> who is (or at least used to be ;-)) bilingual in a
> non-Indo-European language
> (Hebrew), I can say that the differences in basic assumptions
> really do make
> one think a little differently in the other language.

I definitely agree. I have studied German briefly, and know from that brief
exposure that my thought patterns changed as I became more proficient. (And
just about anything that gives me a different perspective I'd call a good
thing). Especially when you consider a language that is significantly
different from the roots of your own native language.

From a pure linguistics standpoint, I can kinda see now where it would have
value. However, I don't see it as valuable at all from a communicative
standpoint.

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-
Message no. 4
From: Rick Musci <Chocobo219@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:08:29 EDT
In a message dated 9/22/98 10:05:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, xaos@*****.NET
writes:

> Certainly an honorable goal, but I'm skeptical. I don't even think I could
> comment on the motivations of the fan who dresses in Klingon garb and has
> created a character for others to interact with.
>

Err, just to point it out, Role Players do the same thing. We do create
characters for other to interact with. So do authors, albeit in a seperate
world. And some of use do dress up like our characters.

Steel Katana
Message no. 5
From: "XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:36:29 -0500
> Err, just to point it out, Role Players do the same thing. We do create
> characters for other to interact with. So do authors, albeit in a seperate
> world. And some of use do dress up like our characters.

My point wasn't to criticize the activity (although there is something to be
said for the old Shatner/SNL "Get a Life!" skit), but to provide an example
of someone making use of the language for questionable purposes (which I
admitted I had no theory about). One such individual who made the original
comment to me (and deeply involved with the 'politics' of the local
'Klingon' play-acting organization. I think it was called "KAG" or something
like that), that seemed rather disparaging of Esperanto and highly touting
Klingon as a valid language. (To provide a bit of background and possible
disclaimer here... I find Esperanto to be interesting and in the past have
made very very brief attempts to begin to learn it. I may be somewhat biased
Esperanto here, but hopefully my comments have merit).

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-
Message no. 6
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:51:08 -0500
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 11:42 PM

>Consider it an experiment in linguistics, Xaos. The professional linguist
>(name?) who created a full Klingon language did so deliberately to try out
>certain theories of verb placement and sentence structure.

James Doohan created the few words of it spoken in STAR TREK: THE MOTION
PICTURE. Marc Okrand was brought in to create a language for some of the
extensive Klingon conversation scenes in STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR
SPOCK.

It kind of snowballed from there, much to my ever-lasting regret as a fan of
STAR TREK (it's not the kind of thing a lot of us like to be associated or
identified with).

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 7
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:49:02 EDT
In a message dated 9/22/98 9:05:49 PM, Xaos wrote:

>James (Jimmy) Doohan (sp?). Non-professional 'actor'. But I get your point.
>
>You're talking about the person who took the sounds emitted from the show
>
>and for whatever reason (most likely, personal gain, from my cynical point
>
>of view), created a language.

No, sorry. There is an actual, genuine, PhD-carrying linguist who has designed
the language's sentence structure and expanded and edited its vocabulary. I've
just forgotten his name.

ST
Message no. 8
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:54:02 EDT
I should point out, BTW, that I am not a Trekkie, and that perfecting Klingon
does strike as somewhat trivial. Nevertheless, I can see some merit to it.

ST
Message no. 9
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:20:04 -0400
XaOs [David Goth] wrote:
>
> Okay, back to my Off Topic rant. Your mention of Star Trek reminds me of
> something I've often heard and read regarding Klingon. The story goes (and
> is likely true), that there are more speakers (most versions say United
> States citizens) of Klingon (some variants say something about fluency,
> others are more general) than speakers of Esperanto.

Wrong. There are at least two million speakers of Esperanto, according to
the World Almanac. The number of people who can actually *speak* Klingon,
rather than simply being able to quote some of Worf's better lines,
probably numbers in the low thousands. If that much. (Yeah, we've all
heard the anecdote about the guy who was lost in Japan 'til he came across
a kid who spoke Klingon. I don't believe it, even if it *is* true.) >8->


> To me, this is a terrible shame. To compare a 'language' that was invented
> because some hack actor thought of a few 'words' that sounded guttural
> enough to be the spoken language of Klingons to a language that was created
> to be communicative and accessible by speakers of a broad range of
> languages, is appalling. I've got nothing against the rabid Star Trek fans,
> but this irks me to no end.

Surprisingly, that's also wrong. Klingon was invented by a linguist at a
university in D.C. (can't remember the guy's name) at Roddenberry's
behest. It's a real language, with a real grammar and real
idiosyncrasies. The people who speak it really *communicate* with it,
they don't just make up guttural sounds to each other.

(OBAnecdote: One of the idiosyncrasies of the language is that it
eliminates the passive form -- there's no version of the verb "be" or
"is"
possible in the language. So when they translated the "To be or not to
be" speech for Trek VI, they had to get really, er, creative with the
wording.) >8->


> Thankfully, I don't see this happening ever with Sperethiel, but it would
> probably still be better than Klingon. :)

It'd be neat, but I doubt anyone will ever take the time.

If someone here likes to flirt with linguistics and *does* want to spend a
lot of time inventing Sperethiel, you might be interested in the Language
Construction Kit on the Web: http://www.tezcat.com/~markrose/kit.html

It's a resource for creating naturalistic languages, specifically for the
purpose of SF/fantasy novels and such.


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 10
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:29:04 -0400
Smilin' Ted wrote:
>
> I should point out, BTW, that I am not a Trekkie, and that perfecting Klingon
> does strike as somewhat trivial. Nevertheless, I can see some merit to it.

So does spending 6+ hours a week playing pretend and rolling dice. >8->
(All opposed? Raise hands, please...)

Just about *everyone* with a hobby has a natural tendency to defend their
hobby as the coolest thing around, and to look at many other people's
hobbies as silly, or at best "somewhat trivial." Certainly not as
worthwhile as whatever *we're* doing.

It's ALL trivial, folks! That's why they're hobbies. (Not bashing you,
Smilin' Ted; just pointing up the irony of this thread.)


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 11
From: Mike Elkins <Mike_Elkins@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:32:39 -0400
<snip: Klingon, the language>
I'm slightly embarassed to say that Dragon actually has a recognizer
trained up for Klingon. Paramount helped pay for it, I think. Probably a
bad business decision considering we still don't have one for Portugese or
Japanese, or Arabic, or Korean, or Australian English or South American
Spanish, or ....

In our defense, it's really just a toy recognizer, used for a "language
lab" program on the "Klingon" game CD, and took much less effort than we
would put into a recognizer for a "real" language.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 12
From: "XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:10:04 -0500
> No, sorry. There is an actual, genuine, PhD-carrying linguist who
> has designed
> the language's sentence structure and expanded and edited its
> vocabulary. I've
> just forgotten his name.

That may be the case NOW, but the origins of the 'language' are fairly well
documented to have been the result of James Doohan making up some Klingon
words for a movie.



-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-
Message no. 13
From: "XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:12:33 -0500
> Wrong. There are at least two million speakers of Esperanto, according to
> the World Almanac. The number of people who can actually *speak* Klingon,
> rather than simply being able to quote some of Worf's better lines,
> probably numbers in the low thousands. If that much. (Yeah, we've all
> heard the anecdote about the guy who was lost in Japan 'til he came across
> a kid who spoke Klingon. I don't believe it, even if it *is* true.) >8->

This is very reassuring to me. Now at least I have a reference I can point
to to counter any anecdotal 'evidence' presented to me. (And if I bothered
with the effort, I'd probably be able to find some more).

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-
Message no. 14
From: Tarek Okail <Tarek_Okail@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:25:12 -0400
Double-Domed Mike--

>In our defense, it's really just a toy recognizer, used for a
>"language lab" program on the "Klingon" game CD, and took much
>less effort than we would put into a recognizer for a "real"
>language.

Whoa. You worked on the Dragon voice recognition programs?
Thanks a lot! You guys did a real good job on that stuff, and it's
something that I look forward to using quite often. Once you get
past the training, and the vocabulary builder, it's sweet.

Shadowmage
Message no. 15
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 02:44:51 EDT
In a message dated 9/23/98 10:11:43 AM, Xaos wrote:

>That may be the case NOW, but the origins of the 'language' are fairly well
>
>documented to have been the result of James Doohan making up some Klingon
>
>words for a movie.

But the point isn't that its beginning was an actor making up a few words. The
point is that it isn't made-up gobbledygook now, but an "artificial language"
as valid as Esperanto, if created with admittedly different intentions and
results.

ST

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] RE: Language Questions - Again, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!