tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 30 10:27:18 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Postmodernism & tlhIngan Hol

>Subject:     Re: Postmodernism & tlhIngan Hol
>Sent:        7/30/96 6:38 AM
>Received:    7/30/96 1:24 PM
>From:        David W. Schaefer, [email protected]
>Reply-To:    [email protected]
>To:          Multiple recipients of list, [email protected]
>
>>>I remembered while studying French I found that when I spoke the language I
>>>also thought in French.  If I had to assemble an idea in English, then
>>>translate, I would lose the intent of a statement - or lose the entire 
thread
>>>of thought.  Thinking in the language you are speaking does indeed influence
>>>how thoughts are processed.  And therefore your view of the world.  When
>>>speaking a language, you must take into account not only the words, but also
>>>the principles of the language's society.  The Klingon concept of honor, as
>>>an example, implies much more than just the English word.  Many problems 
with
>>>translation arise from trying to do so directly - word for word - when what
>>>should be translated is the idea or concept.    
>
>I agree that when you learn a language well enough that you begin thinking in
>that new language.  I don't know tlhIngan Hol fluently by any stretch of the
>imagination, but I've already begun thinking in the language at times.  
>However,
>I don't believe this comes from the language, as postmodernism claims, but 
>from
>the culture.  Klingons think differently, but not because of their 
>language, but
>because of their cultural conditioning.  Take a Klingon out of his society,
>teach him Federation standard and I guarantee he *won't* start watching 
>Melrose
>Place and singing Ricky Nelson tunes.
>If, according to postmodern thought, you can't successfully escape your
>language, this kind of understanding is tainted by the language you 
>originally
>learned.  Thought is not independent of language and vice versa.  If this is
>true, then how *can* we think in a different language?  Shouldn't this be
>impossible under the postmodernist theory?
>
>>>Generally, I think the creation of tlhIngan Hol does indeed fit the
>>>postmodern philosophy.
>
>According to postmodernists, however, you cannot know the individual 
>reality of
>the anyone else.  You have no objective stance to observe truth, therefore 
>you
>have absolutely no basis for understanding.  This becomes even more 
>evident when
>crossing cultures, where the "gaps" of misunderstanding become chasms.  How,
>then, can tlhIngan Hol be an *international* phenomenon?  How can this very
>alien language be understood and learned in any objective sense outside of 
>the
>culture of its creator?  If you look at the postmodern philosophy, this may
>happen on more of an "accidental" scale, but not on the huge scale that has
>become evident through the KLI and smaller tlhIngan Hol organizations.  Can
>postmodernism as a theory reconcile this?
>
>>>As I said, fascinating concept!  Thanks for giving me a lot to think about
>>>!!!!
>>>
>>>Deb A.
>>>D'ahlkris  
>
>Hm.  Now you got *me* thinking a tad deeper than I expected, too.
>I must go and ponder further...
>
>Dave S.
>HarwI'na'
>
Ok, [email protected] and [email protected] are the same 
persons, the mailer change autamtily the name, please unsuscribe me of 
this list.

thank

Jose Mijares




Jose Mijares 
Sysop LogicOnline BBS..El BBS de los usuarios Macintosh. Telf 582-238-2803
_________________________________________________________________________
[email protected] | [email protected] | Sysop@4:890/7.fidonet
_________________________________________________________________________
Si quieres un cambio, no hagas siempre lo mismo (Albert Einsten)  :-)

Back to archive top level