Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.composition,sci.lang,rec.arts.sf.science
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: sf & language
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E62CIH.1vI@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <5e0tlb$igt$1@darla.visi.com> <5elte9$1ip@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> <330F92E3.23F2@nbcc.nb.ca> <330fb29b.3108414@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:01:29 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <330fb29b.3108414@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Dugan <wkdugan@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Andrew Crisp <mo036465@nbcc.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>You're right that the "universal translator" is mere handwaving.  Real
>>languages can take a myriad number of forms.  Some Earth languages are
>>very different from the Indo-European forms; take Swahili, where grammar
>>rules are not so much for using words but _making_ words.  And some
>>languages may not even use _words_.

You're crossposting to sci.lang, so allow me to quibble with your example:
Swahili is agglutinative mainly in the verb.  That is, a single inflected 
verb may correspond to an entire verbal phrase in a European language, but 
otherwise, the number of words in a sentence is comparable to English.
It's Eskimo and many Amerind languages which are polysynthetic, i.e.
languages in which single words correspond to entire complex sentences in
English.

Point well taken about the amazing variety of linguistic forms, though.

>>So a more proper scenario in _Star Trek_ would be for every new race
>>encountered to have their language translated the "old fashioned" way;
>>with a computer and a top-notch linguist analyzing every bit of
>>information they can.
>
>Except that there's no way such a process could be shown within the
>confines of a one hour show. We should allow a certain amount of
>dramatic license in areas where it's impractical to do better, and
>save our indignation for stuff that could have been done right but
>wasn't.

Such as that miserable TNG episode where they meet a race that talks
"entirely in metaphor".  I suppose ["put under"] it never occurred ["ran
towards"] to them that most languages ["tongue-ages"] make extensive
["stretched out"] use of metaphor ["beyond carrier"]--mostly "dead"
metaphor (a metaphoric description if I ever heard one), but metaphor all
the same.  Furthermore, if the language really worked by constant
reference to their national epic, how did the members of the race acquire
it as juveniles?  To understand the epic, they must have some grammar in
place, so either everyone learns *two* distinct linguistic systems just to
communicate on a daily basis or they explained the difficulty totally
wrong.  Not to mention that, if the "universal translator" can't handle
lots of metaphor, then previous discussions with other races should've
sounded a lot more bizarre than they ever did.  Or are they all kind
enough to use only English metaphors that can be effortlessly translated
when they speak Klingon etc. to humans?

I suppose I can take consolation in the fact that their physics is not one
iota better than their linguistics.  Or not.

-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
