My favorite fictional language
Jul. 23rd, 2012 09:48 pmSure, some people love Klingon, for its "even more German than German" tone, or Elvish for its elegance, or some of the other languages J. R. R. Tolkien created by banging his original languages together and running the resultant creoles through thousands of years of linguistic modification. Many people love Láadan for its required use of evidentials, and its work in deconstruction linguistic constructions of gender. And there are plenty of other languages created for fiction that do cool things, and are just emotionally resonant with people -- either because the language itself is cool and has cool features, or because it's associated with a beloved work, or both.
My favorite? The rabbits' language in WATERSHIP DOWN. Sure, Richard Adams isn't much of a linguist -- he never put thought into syntax and grammar and how languages actually WORK, the way, say, Suzette Haden Elgin, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Marc Okrand did. Lapine is pretty much just some vocabulary smooshed together.
But the thing is, "hrair" and "tharn" are words that I actually USE. Like "grok", "hrair" and "tharn" express useful concepts that were not previously so concisely and simply expressible in English.
In case you're not familiar with them, "tharn" means "glazed and frozen in fear and stress -- trapped and locked down in the 'freeze' reaction of 'fight/flight/freeze'." And "hrair" is "a number more than what's easily and obviously countable -- approximately, 'a lot', or, maybe, 'five'."
The argument has been made that hrair >= 5 for rabbits, but for humans, it might be a different number, maybe hrair >= 9.
The point is, if you're facing hrair attackers, you've got NO chance to fight them off; if you've got hrair options, there are too many choices to really deal with (which could make you go tharn).
Indeed, it could be pointed out that Jay-Z didn't actually have 99 problems: if you count them up in the song, he actually had hrair problems.
Also, of course, the reason why everybody loves lapine -- one of the best quotes in all of literature: "Silflay hraka, u embleer rah!"
My favorite? The rabbits' language in WATERSHIP DOWN. Sure, Richard Adams isn't much of a linguist -- he never put thought into syntax and grammar and how languages actually WORK, the way, say, Suzette Haden Elgin, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Marc Okrand did. Lapine is pretty much just some vocabulary smooshed together.
But the thing is, "hrair" and "tharn" are words that I actually USE. Like "grok", "hrair" and "tharn" express useful concepts that were not previously so concisely and simply expressible in English.
In case you're not familiar with them, "tharn" means "glazed and frozen in fear and stress -- trapped and locked down in the 'freeze' reaction of 'fight/flight/freeze'." And "hrair" is "a number more than what's easily and obviously countable -- approximately, 'a lot', or, maybe, 'five'."
The argument has been made that hrair >= 5 for rabbits, but for humans, it might be a different number, maybe hrair >= 9.
The point is, if you're facing hrair attackers, you've got NO chance to fight them off; if you've got hrair options, there are too many choices to really deal with (which could make you go tharn).
Indeed, it could be pointed out that Jay-Z didn't actually have 99 problems: if you count them up in the song, he actually had hrair problems.
Also, of course, the reason why everybody loves lapine -- one of the best quotes in all of literature: "Silflay hraka, u embleer rah!"
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 02:19 am (UTC)Do you know how cats count? "Nose, ears, nose-and-ears, paws - whiskers!" - which is a Very Big Number, and should probably be run away from.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 02:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 02:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 02:36 am (UTC)Checking... Got it! In Lapine, his name is a contraction of the phrase Elil-Hrair-Rah, meaning "prince with a thousand enemies".
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 02:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 04:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 04:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 05:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 06:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 12:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 12:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 12:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-24 03:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 03:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 03:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-17 12:11 am (UTC)Of course, ten years ago - well, fifteen, anyway - I couldn't have looked up place names on google maps to find out where they are. (Quite near Basingstoke, as it happens.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-17 01:56 am (UTC)Of course, both Lockey and Adams presumably interpreted what they saw and read through a lens of patriarchy, but, y'know, that's just One Of Those Things.
In any case, one of the reasons the book actually works so well is that Adams DID do some basic research into rabbits before writing, even if what he found out has since been superseded.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-17 02:39 am (UTC)I mean, I pretty much forgive it anyway. It's a fun read, and I can have the fun without being too bothered by the sexism. But I notice it's there. (And I wonder if I'd find it as easy to enjoy despite the sexism if I weren't male.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-17 03:06 am (UTC)I think the fact that the book's from 1972 makes a difference. We've had forty years to think about feminist ideals since then, and I hope that we've made some progress. I hope that more people nowadays would NOT make that unthinking assumption about Proper Gender Roles -- certainly, I'd expect that, at least among my friends, folks would have at least a shot at not falling into that trap.
Additionally, women, unfortunately, HAVE to develop something of a thick skin against that kind of pervasive unthinking sexism in fiction.