Re: VL-TRANS: a favorite saying
Saul Epstein 
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:55:44 -0500

At 02:45 PM 10/21/97 -0500, Rob wrote:

>At 01:29 PM 10/21/97 -0500, Saul wrote:
>
>>At 12:29 PM 10/21/97 -0500, Rob wrote:
>>
>>>You've mentioned something like this before, and really feel sure I 
>>>don't
>>>understand what you mean. What kind of applications of this ambiguous 
>>>voice did you have in mind? What kind of form would the grammer take, if
>>>you say use English in your examples?
>>
>>"Suddenly light
>> Suddenly dark -
>> I am a shooting star too."
>
>As Doc McCoy would say, "Now hang on here just a cotton picken'
>minute". You have shown an english translation of a Vulcan poem.
>Poetry does not translate well at all in any language.
>
>"kahs'khiori th'thya" does not translate to "I am a shooting
>star" exactly, the ambiguity in this case arises in the English
>translation.
>
>More literally translated "shooting star  = self". Which sounds
>nonsensical unless one assumes a poetic mode of speaking.

Well, that was my point. But I still don't see much difference between

        a: I am a shooting star.
        b: shooting star = ego
        c: An equivalence relates shooting star and ego.

Unless you're focussing on the difference between equality and identity.

>>Or something originally English:
>>
>>"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps 
>>it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step 
>>to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."
>
>Same thing in E-Prime:
>
>If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps _this
>occurs_ because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to
>the music which he hears however measured or far away.

What pace? What drummer? What music? What distance?

>Or "perhaps he hears a different drummer".
>
>An unambiguous grammer does not imply a lack of gratuitous
>metaphors. The fact that Thoreau did not refer to an existant
>drummer or music does not mean the language to express such an
>utterance must have ambiguous grammatical rules.

Why "gratuitous?" Thoreau's metaphor lifts this above the rather pedestrian
observation that people are different and should express that difference.

>>These are examples of ambiguous expressions. They don't demonstrate
>>anything grammatical because English doesn't distinguish between 
>>ambiguous and inambiguous expression in its grammar. One might argue 
>>that it can't.
>
>Perhaps I should have spoke more specifically. I mean only we should
>make sure to have an unambiguous grammer. Vulcan does not appear to 
>have ambiguous grammer now, just not fully fleshed out. I do not think 
>that an ambiguous grammer would preclude any poetry, or creative prose.

I can pretty much go along with that, though I think we may run into
problems when it comes to defining grammatical ambiguity. That tends to
refer to the possibility of sentences with indeterminate subjects, or
over-use of pronouns till one can no longer determine who did what, or
deictic confusion...

>I just think that the grammer, and semantic rules should make it obvious
>when we are using the poetic/metaphorical mode, and a 
>scientific/existential mode.

That, again is pretty much what I said. A long time ago I speculated that
telepathy might have taught Vulcans a high appreciation for the ambiguity of
language, inspiring great art and great math through special linguistic
forms for the latter.

>Right now the Vulcan language seems to do that. I just want us to keep 
>it that way. The fact that Vulcan does not have a "to be" or "is of" 
>identity implies this idea to me.

Unfortunately, identity is a primary pillar of metaphor. I'm not saying the
grammar should or shouldn't include it -- any language consists of
limitations and a poet's job is to get around them. All I was originally
saying is that natural languages are ambiguous, because you seemed to be
saying that Vulcan shouldn't be. And I guess all I'm saying now is that I'm
not worried about the ambiguity of the grammar. It will be interesting, in
fact, if we can keep it out.

>I don't know maybe I'm harping on something that seems obvious to 
>everone but me.

I don't think so. But I guess it depends on whom the set "everyone"
contains. ;-,

--
from Saul Epstein
liberty <at> uit <dot> net
www <dot> johnco <dot> cc <dot> ks <dot> us <slash> <tilde> sepstein
"Surak ow'pha:per the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pha:dzhar the's'hi surakecha'."
					-- K'dvarin Ursw~l'at