Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.composition,sci.lang,rec.arts.sf.science
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!ncar!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: <E6BMy4.8x2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <5e0tlb$igt$1@darla.visi.com> <331a3945.57084493@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <5f4ntn$flu@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> <331f739b.48570429@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:25:16 GMT
Lines: 101

In article <331f739b.48570429@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Harvey White <madyn@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 27 Feb 1997 19:39:35 GMT, gwiseman@uoguelph.ca (Loki) wrote:
><snip>
> in reply to something I wrote....
>>: IIRC, the problem was supposed to be that the translator couldn't get
>>: a handle on the allegory, so while the words made sense, the meanings
>>: didn't.  
>>
>>Right--but the meanings should have been far more apparent to an outside 
>>observer than the substructure language with the aliens themselves 
>>apparently didn't understand, UNLESS those meanings were common to other 
>>languages.
>
>I think we're rather arguing the same side here, but with slight
>differences.  
>
>The translation, of "Whoever ,his arms wide" implies that they have
>words for posessives, proper names, nouns, and implied verbs.  So they
>are supposed to have a language with (perhaps even) SVO that we might
>understand.  

Let me return to my Chinese example to explain what I think the other
poster is trying to say.  Imagine a Chinese Mandarin meeting a Portuguese
missionary in the 16th century.  Like any good scholar, he peppers his
speech with generous quotations from Chinese classics like the Analects of
Confucius.  Now, Classical Chinese and Early Modern Mandarin are only
vaguely similar in grammar and vocabulary; furthermore, the quotations are
often highly elliptical (like the expressions "Out of sight, out of mind"
or "Six of one" in English) and pregnant with references to Chinese
history.

At first, our missionary is going to be baffled.  It sounds like the
Mandarin is speaking all Chinese (since he's giving the Classical Chinese
quotations contemporary Mandarin pronunciation--not like when the
missionary inserts Latin quotations into his Portuguese), but many of his
utterances make no sense.  However, after a while, it becomes clear that
he says "Wrapped yellow ox hide" when referring to difficult situations
and "One life, ten die" when talking of deadly ones.  With enough context,
the meaning of the quotations becomes clear even though the missionary
still has no idea where they come from or what they originally meant.

Similarly, the Chinese servant the missionary has hired eventually figures
out that the missionary says "Deo volente" whenever discussing an
uncertain situation, "cum grano salis" when expressing his dubiousness 
about the veracity of reported information, and "Et tu, Brutu?" when the
servant sides with his fellows against the missionary. The servant doesn't
have to know anything about Latin grammar or the context that spawned
these sayings to understand what they mean in context.

"Darmok" attempted to present a language where these practices are taken
to an extreme, where *everything* consists of references to literature or
history.  The UT, like the Chinese servant, doesn't have access to the 
literature or the histories; it is, presumably, working exclusively from
context.  Given that, how the hell can it break down this utterances into
smaller parts?  After all, just as the missionary can start using "four
character phrases" in his Mandarin and the servant can begin dropping
Latin quotations into his Portuguese without having a clue how to analyse
the components, the UT can recognise that "Temba ayagh mtheouk t'ra" means
"give" or "giving" without analysing it as "Temba, arms wide".  In fact,
it *can't* analyse it as "Temba, arms wide" because that interpretation is
not supported by context.

The only conclusion we can make, therefore, from the way the utterances
were translated is the hokey one that the language was either one the UT
had previously analysed or very similar to one.  It's not unlike what
might happen if a naive English speaker were confronted with speakers of
an English-based Pidign, like Tok Pisin, where the deficit in vocabulary
is made up by metaphorical extension (e.g. "gras bilong hed" for "hair").

>Obviously, the intention was to show a language where the words make
>sense, but the meanings don't.  
>
>Assuming that "A, his arms..." and "B, his arms..." can have different
>meanings, ( and they could in English, etc.) then we're talking
>different allegories.  Rejection, giving, supplication, welcome, even
>the simple english word "all".  

But assuming this is *not* the case--if "arms wide" is only used in
contexts of giving and rejection is (or was in the time of composition)
expressed with arms crossed, welcoming with one arm raised, etc.--then
modifying this allegory would produce garbage.  It's as if you tried to
say "Wrapped oiled paper" for a not-so-difficult situation or "cum grano
saccharoni" to indicate you believed someone's account.  Maybe this would
work with someone who really knew the source material (and even for her,
it would sound bizarre), but more naive speakers would just assume you
made a mistake.

>The language can adapt, since Picard modifed one of the allegories to
>describe the "new" situation.  But precise, it's not.

So this confirms what I thought:  That the language does not work
"entirely through metaphor", that this is simply a mistatement on the part
of the crew.  It works like any other, but is highly, highly allusive, at
least in formal contexts like meeting guys with big, dangerous, ships.


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