Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dedicated Confusion

Expand Messages
  • caunweth
    After reading many posts as to the decline in elfing and it s authority s credibility I have been filled with wonder whether my studies have been fruitless
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      After reading many posts as to the "decline" in elfing and
      it's "authority's credibility" I have been filled with wonder
      whether my studies have been fruitless in the pursuit of the most
      (possible) acurate translations in my work. Is it only Sindarin, or
      Quenya as well that contains these "unmentioned silent errors"?

      Would it be best to avoid David Salo's thoughts on Elvish? Even
      Helge Fauskanger's reputation was brought to question in a post. Are
      parts of his "Quenya Course" in err? Any help would be much
      appreciated.

      I never did learn the reason's to why members became grey-
      listed. That too is something I would like to know...

      Thanks,
      Caunweth
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... Helge s course is a remarkable work, valuable for introducing so many of the fundamental themes that Tolkien used in constructing Quenya. And if you can
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jan 11, 2004, at 9:38 PM, caunweth wrote:

        > Would it be best to avoid David Salo's thoughts on Elvish? Even
        > Helge Fauskanger's reputation was brought to question in a post. Are
        > parts of his "Quenya Course" in err?

        Helge's course is a remarkable work, valuable for introducing so many
        of the fundamental themes that Tolkien used in constructing Quenya. And
        if you can _find_ any of David Salo's thoughts on Elvish, they too are
        certainly worthy of consideration.

        But the key word is _consideration_. Helge and David are _not_ the
        final authority on Tolkien's languages -- Helge himself I'm sure is
        legitimately frustrated at being cited as such by so many -- and their
        works _do_ contain errors. Usually, these errors arise from
        _dismissing_ evidence that does not fit their notions are desires, or
        by being too hasty to assert "facts" based on non-conclusive evidence
        and/or perceived convenience to turning Quenya and Sindarin into
        "usable" languages -- something that, notably, was of _no_ concern to
        Tolkien himself. David and Helge are _wrong_ about the meaning of S
        _-ch_, about the Sindarin past-tense verb, about _mudas_, and many
        other things besides (but thanks to their pronouncements and complacent
        silence on these matter, their erroneous claims are now treated as
        fact; while David esp. has done his best to silence dissent and
        correction of his mistakes, and to promote his opinions and
        fabrications as fact; and for that they should be roundly criticized).

        So their work deserves _attention_, but not the deference and reverence
        that is so frequently accorded it. They should be used _only_ as an
        invitation to further study, of _Tolkien's own words_. _Tolkien_ is the
        _only_ authority on his languages.

        It should also be remarked that in terms of introducing the aspects of
        Tolkien's languages that were of fundamental interest to Tolkien
        himself, namely historical linguistics and phonological development,
        Jim Allan's _An Introduction to Elvish_ remains a very valuable work,
        both for its conclusions and its mode of reasoning and presentation.
        Despite Helge, David, and Lisa Star's frequent dismissal of it.


        --
        =============================================
        Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

        ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
        Ars longa, vita brevis.
        The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
        "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
        a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        As an addendum to my post, I d like to offer some rules of thumb to help one assess the worth of any work on Tolkien s languages: 1) If the author claims to be
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          As an addendum to my post, I'd like to offer some rules of thumb to
          help one assess the worth of any work on Tolkien's languages:

          1) If the author claims to be able to speak Quenya or Sindarin, or that
          others can, or even that it should eventually be possible to do so; or
          equates them in any way with Esperanto, be very suspicious. They are
          wrong. Tolkien was not at all concerned to make Quenya or Sindarin into
          speakable languages. He was not creating an auxiliary language. He
          referred to them as _art_ languages, and his purpose for them was
          _artistic_ and _intellectual_, not utilitarian.

          2) If the author rarely or never cites page references to Tolkien's
          work, and relies primarily on fabricated forms or phrases that Tolkien
          never wrote to explain or support their claims, be very suspicious.
          Using one's own fabrications as support is essentially circular
          reasoning. Nor can the evidence for Tolkien's languages be abstracted
          from the context in which Tolkien wrote them, both primary- and
          secondary-world. Doing such leads to such common linguistic errors as
          dictionary translation.

          3) If the author frequently makes reference to "mature" forms, or to
          "mistakes" in Tolkien's own descriptions of his languages, be very
          suspicious. This attitude is used to allow the author to make arbitrary
          selections among the evidence, and to put the evidence at the service
          of theory instead of the other way around, as is the proper scholarly
          procedure.

          4) If an author describes some grammatical construction as "correct",
          without explaining why by making reference to Tolkien's own words,
          forms, and examples, be very suspicious. Such an attitude is a
          byproduct of the fallacious belief/assertion that Tolkien's languages
          can be spoken. As with any poorly-attested language without sufficient
          _actual_ examples of written or spoken texts, this is utterly false.
          _No one_ can claim to know what is or is not "correct" for any such
          language in any non-trivial way; and thus any claim of "speaking" is
          pure nonsense. Pretending otherwise has the effect, whether intended or
          not, of insinuating the author between the student and Tolkien himself,
          and holding the author up as an example of correctness: an utterly
          false and artificial situation.

          That should do for starters.

          --
          =============================================
          Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

          ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
          Ars longa, vita brevis.
          The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
          "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
          a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
        • Fang Benson
          Carl F. Hostetter wrote: these errors arise from _dismissing_ evidence that does not fit their notions are desires, Can you give me
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 18, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:

            these errors arise from
            _dismissing_ evidence that does not fit their notions are desires,

            Can you give me some examples about Helge's (no D.S.'s) _dismissing_ essaies? I would like to know it :)

            or by being too hasty to assert "facts" based on non-conclusive evidence
            and/or perceived convenience to turning Quenya and Sindarin into
            "usable" languages -- something that, notably, was of _no_ concern to
            Tolkien himself.

            I don't see there is any fault to make every effort to make Sindarin or Quenya a usable languages. Please remember that everyone has his/her own idea and thought about everything, and don't do something that David has done. Think twice before saying something as "Neo-Elvish nonsense".

            David and Helge are _wrong_ about the meaning of S
            _-ch_, about the Sindarin past-tense verb, about _mudas_, and many
            other things besides

            If Helge has the same resource as your team has, I think he would have some ideas for _mudas_, but not just hope someday in the future the new VT will come out and begin to research it.

            You always claim that all the resources are public and available...Hey hey... Of course they are public and available---only for those which had been publications. People likes us can only wait your conclusion or essaies. How about share all the resources to the public and see who would have some remarkable thoughts about them?

            (but thanks to their pronouncements and complacent
            silence on these matter, their erroneous claims are now treated as
            fact; while David esp. has done his best to silence dissent and
            correction of his mistakes, and to promote his opinions and
            fabrications as fact; and for that they should be roundly criticized).

            So their work deserves _attention_, but not the deference and reverence
            that is so frequently accorded it. They should be used _only_ as an
            invitation to further study, of _Tolkien's own words_. _Tolkien_ is the
            _only_ authority on his languages.

            It should also be remarked that in terms of introducing the aspects of
            Tolkien's languages that were of fundamental interest to Tolkien
            himself, namely historical linguistics and phonological development,
            Jim Allan's _An Introduction to Elvish_ remains a very valuable work,
            both for its conclusions and its mode of reasoning and presentation.
            Despite Helge, David, and Lisa Star's frequent dismissal of it.


            --
            =============================================
            Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org



            ---------------------------------
            每天都 Yahoo!奇摩
            海的顏色、風的氣息、愛你的溫度,盡在信紙底圖
            信紙底圖

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Fang Benson
            ... does not fit their notions are desires, Can you give me some examples about Helge s (no D.S. s) _dismissing_ essaies? I would like to know it ...
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 18, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:

              >these errors arise from _dismissing_ evidence that
              does not fit their notions are desires,

              Can you give me some examples about Helge's (no
              D.S.'s) _dismissing_ essaies? I would like to know it
              :)

              >or by being too hasty to assert "facts" based on
              non-conclusive evidence and/or perceived convenience
              to turning Quenya and Sindarin into
              "usable" languages -- something that, notably, was of
              _no_ concern to Tolkien himself.

              I don't see there is any fault to make every effort to
              make Sindarin or Quenya a usable languages. Please
              remember that everyone has his/her own idea and
              thought about everything, and don't do something that
              David has done. Think twice before saying something as
              "Neo-Elvish nonsense".

              David and Helge are _wrong_ about the meaning of S
              _-ch_, about the Sindarin past-tense verb, about
              _mudas_, and many
              other things besides

              If Helge has the same resource as your team has, I
              think he would have some ideas for _mudas_, but not
              just hope someday in the future the new VT will come
              out and begin to research it.

              You always claim that all the resources are public and
              available...Hey hey... Of course they are public and
              available---only for those which had been
              publications. People likes us can only wait your
              conclusion or essaies. How about share all the
              resources to the public and see who would have some
              remarkable thoughts about them?

              >(but thanks to their pronouncements and complacent
              silence on these matter, their erroneous claims are
              now treated as fact; while David esp. has done his
              best to silence dissent and correction of his
              mistakes, and to promote his opinions and fabrications
              as fact; and for that they should be roundly
              criticized).

              >So their work deserves _attention_, but not the
              deference and reverence that is so frequently accorded
              it. They should be used _only_ as an invitation to
              further study, of _Tolkien's own words_. _Tolkien_ is
              the _only_ authority on his languages.

              >It should also be remarked that in terms of
              introducing the aspects of Tolkien's languages that
              were of fundamental interest to Tolkien
              himself, namely historical linguistics and
              phonological development, Jim Allan's _An Introduction
              to Elvish_ remains a very valuable work, both for its
              conclusions and its mode of reasoning and
              presentation. Despite Helge, David, and Lisa Star's
              frequent dismissal of it.


              --
              >Carl F. Hostetter  
              Aelfwine@...   >http://www.elvish.org




              -----------------------------------------------------------------
              每天都 Yahoo!奇摩
              海的顏色、風的氣息、愛你的溫度,盡在信紙底圖
              http://tw.promo.yahoo.com/mail_premium/stationery.html
            • Petri Tikka
              ... Yes, it is clearly true that Tolkien did not create his languages in order to use them, at least primarily. So it is indeed fallacious to claim to be able
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 11, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                > 1) If the author claims to be able to speak Quenya or Sindarin, or
                > that others can, or even that it should eventually be possible to
                > do so; or equates them in any way with Esperanto, be very
                > suspicious. They are wrong. Tolkien was not at all concerned to
                > make Quenya or Sindarin into speakable languages. He was not
                > creating an auxiliary language. He referred to them as _art_
                > languages, and his purpose for them was _artistic_ and
                > _intellectual_, not utilitarian.

                Yes, it is clearly true that Tolkien did not create his languages in
                order to use them, at least primarily. So it is indeed fallacious to
                claim to be able to speak Tolkien's _personal_ Quenya. But an
                entirely different thing is to be able to speak _Neo_-Quenya. That
                is a language based on Tolkien's writing about a certain language
                called Q(u)enya inspired by Finnish, drawing basically all of its
                elements (grammatical constructions, meanings, roots, sayings, words
                etc.) from Tolkien's writings in and about Q(u)enya, but heavily
                modified and systemized in order to be used for writing and
                speaking. And of course this is intended to be as similar as
                possible to Tolkien's personal Quenya, so I don't see any sin in
                calling it simply Quenya, just as long the two are kept distinct.
                But whether one conciders such an enterprise worthwhile or even
                possible, that is yet another matter...

                Ondo Erulasto Tambaro (Petri Samuel Tikka)
                http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                ... Actually, no, it isn t. Assuming that by Neo-Quenya you mean the language sketched in Helge s course, supplemented by Tolkien s lexicons, then the
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 11, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mar 11, 2004, at 7:48 AM, Petri Tikka wrote:

                  > it is indeed fallacious to claim to be able to speak Tolkien's
                  > _personal_ Quenya. But an entirely different thing is to be able to
                  > speak _Neo_-Quenya.

                  Actually, no, it isn't. Assuming that by "Neo-Quenya" you mean the
                  language sketched in Helge's course, supplemented by Tolkien's
                  lexicons, then the problem remains: there is simply not enough known of
                  this language to constitute a corrective model to determine
                  grammaticality for anything but the most trivial and/or artificial
                  utterances. A glance at recent Elfling posts only proves this point:
                  the horrible, entirely un-Tolkienian, vague, semantically distended
                  coinages being bandied about, entirely ad hoc and doomed to have no
                  duration beyond the posts they occur in, demonstrate dramatically the
                  fallacy of the whole notion of speaking Quenya, Neo- or otherwise. You
                  cannot build a language around entirely ad hoc coinages and infinitely
                  distended meanings. No one can or ever will be able to speak
                  "Neo-Quenya" unless it is separated entirely from Tolkien and layered
                  to the point of unrecognizability with new inventions of words, syntax,
                  and grammatical devices. Which, I rather expect, is precisely the
                  agenda of certain "experts"....


                  --
                  =============================================
                  Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                  ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                  Ars longa, vita brevis.
                  The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                  "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                  a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                • Patrick H. Wynne
                  ... a certain language called Q(u)enya inspired by Finnish, drawing basically all of its elements (grammatical constructions, meanings, roots, sayings,words
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Petri Tikka wrote, regarding "Neo-Quenya":

                    > That is a language based on Tolkien's writing about
                    a certain language called Q(u)enya inspired by Finnish,
                    drawing basically all of its elements (grammatical
                    constructions, meanings, roots, sayings,words etc.)
                    from Tolkien's writings in and about Q(u)enya, but
                    heavily modified and systemized in order to be used for
                    writing and speaking. And of course this is intended to
                    be as similar as possible to Tolkien's personal Quenya,
                    so I don't see any sin in calling it simply Quenya, just
                    as long as the two are kept distinct.

                    The term "Quenya" was invented by Tolkien to refer to a language
                    he created as an ongoing expression of his personal linguistic
                    aesthetic and incorporated into his mythology as the language of
                    the High Elves. That, and _only_ that, is what "Quenya" refers to.
                    Tolkien did NOT invent the word "Quenya" to mean 'a heavily
                    modified, systemized, and simplified language expressing
                    the personal linguistic aesthetic of Helge K. Fauskanger,
                    designed to mimic the authentic language of JRR Tolkien'.
                    As someone with a keen interest in and knowledge of linguistics,
                    Petri, you should realize that the precise definition of words
                    is of the utmost importance, nowhere more so than here.

                    You say of Neo-Quenya, "of course this is intended to be as
                    similar as possible to Tolkien's personal Quenya, so I don't
                    see any sin in calling it simply Quenya, just as long as the two
                    are kept distinct." This makes absolutely no sense. What
                    better way to distinguish the authentic language of JRR
                    Tolkien from the spin-off language of Fauskanger than to
                    call the authentic language "Quenya", the name devised for
                    it by its creator, and the spin-off language of Fauskanger
                    "Neo-Quenya"? After all, the cubic zirconia was created to be
                    as similar as possible to a diamond, but _it's not a real
                    diamond_ -- and that's why we call them "cubic zirconia",
                    and not "diamonds". If you don't think that's an important
                    distinction, try giving your girlfriend a "diamond" ring that
                    she later discovers is merely a cubic zirconia!

                    There is no better way to keep similar but essentially different
                    things distinct than to give them different names. This is why
                    we distinguish genuine "gold" from "fool's gold". Let's not
                    call Fauskanger's "fool's Quenya" by any name that might
                    mislead the unwary into believing that it is the authentic
                    language of JRR Tolkien himself.

                    -- Patrick H. Wynne
                  • Petri Tikka
                    ... Yes indeed. But I should like to ask, how in the world the deffinition you gave of Tolkien s Quenya differs essentially from Neo-Quenya. If there is any
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 11, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

                      > The term "Quenya" was invented by Tolkien to refer to a language
                      > he created as an ongoing expression of his personal linguistic
                      > aesthetic and incorporated into his mythology as the language of
                      > the High Elves. That, and _only_ that, is what "Quenya" refers to.
                      > Tolkien did NOT invent the word "Quenya" to mean 'a heavily
                      > modified, systemized, and simplified language expressing
                      > the personal linguistic aesthetic of Helge K. Fauskanger,
                      > designed to mimic the authentic language of JRR Tolkien'.
                      > As someone with a keen interest in and knowledge of linguistics,
                      > Petri, you should realize that the precise definition of words
                      > is of the utmost importance, nowhere more so than here.

                      Yes indeed. But I should like to ask, how in the world the
                      deffinition you gave of Tolkien's Quenya differs essentially from
                      Neo-Quenya. If there is any external form outside of you definition
                      to Quenya, that is. If not, then I entirely agree with you that Neo-
                      Quenya should never be called Quenya. But if there is anything at
                      all fixed, even for a while, in this language, then an attempt to
                      mimick it, even if failing, is the same language. Let me illustrate
                      this: if some said in broken Finnish _Minä olla suomalainen_ "I be
                      Finn" instead of the correct _Minä olen suomalainen_ "I am a Finn",
                      I would still call it _Finnish_, but would additionally define it as
                      _hoono soomi_ (< correct _huono suomi_) "bad Finnish". The speaker
                      of this sentence is in exactly the same position as a speaker of Neo-
                      Quenya: he does not know enough about the language to make perfect
                      sentences in it, but still enough to make at least remotely
                      recognizable sentences.

                      And there _is_ a form to Quenya. If I connect even a single eg.
                      grammatical construction called Quenya by Tolkien from a single
                      sentence with another in another sentence as the same construction,
                      that is. Because then you have a continuity on which to build new
                      sentences, even if short lived. Not only sentences by native
                      speakers (eg. creators) of a language can be defined as correct,
                      because languages are not essentially systems of sentences.
                      They are forms on which to make meaningful sentences.
                      So if there is an any form at all to any sort of Quenya in any
                      sort of way, then you can build sentences with it, and they
                      will be Quenya sentences.

                      And languages are never essentially private. They are _always_ means
                      of communication, even with only yourself. It is possible to
                      understand Quenya sentences by Tolkien, and their form and meaning.
                      That's why calling them the only correct Quenya sentences is
                      fallacious: if you understand the rules behind it, you can yourself
                      use the exact same rules. And if a rule made by Tolkien is called by
                      Tolkien a Quenya rule, then logically also a sentence made with
                      those rules should be called a Quenya sentence, even if a person
                      _other than_ Tolkien makes the sentence.

                      Ondo Erulasto Tambaro (Petri Samuel Tikka)
                      http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      ... Uh... what the..? _Of course_ languages can be private. If they re not shared with anyone else, they re private! By your logic, if I think something to
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Mar 11, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Petri Tikka wrote:

                        > And languages are never essentially private. They are _always_ means
                        > of communication, even with only yourself.

                        Uh... what the..? _Of course_ languages can be private. If they're not
                        shared with anyone else, they're private! By your logic, if I think
                        something to myself, that's not a private thought.
                      • Petri Tikka
                        ... That languages are never essentially private dosen t mean languages can t be private. It means that their essence isn t private. That is proven by the fact
                        Message 11 of 16 , Mar 12, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I wrote:

                          > And languages are never essentially private. They are _always_
                          > means of communication, even with only yourself.

                          Carl replied:

                          > Uh... what the..? _Of course_ languages can be private. If they're
                          > not shared with anyone else, they're private! By your logic, if I
                          > think something to myself, that's not a private thought.

                          That languages are never essentially private dosen't mean languages
                          can't be private. It means that their essence isn't private. That is
                          proven by the fact that language can't be learned without contact
                          with other people from early childhood. By my logic, your thought is
                          not _essentially_ private, ie. it is possible to communicate that
                          thought with another person. But it is private in another sense as
                          long as it is kept inside your head.

                          Ondo Erulasto Tambaro (Petri Samuel Tikka)
                          http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                          ... It is private in every sense so long as it is kept private. A language that is created for private purposes and never shared with another remains both
                          Message 12 of 16 , Mar 12, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Mar 12, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Petri Tikka wrote:

                            > it is private in another sense as long as it is kept inside your head.

                            It is private in every sense so long as it is kept private.

                            A language that is created for private purposes and never shared with
                            another remains both private and a language.

                            If your dog has puppies in the oven, you can call 'em biscuits, but
                            that doesn't make them so.



                            |======================================================================|
                            | Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org |
                            | |
                            | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
                            | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
                            | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
                            | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
                            | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
                            |======================================================================|


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Petri Tikka
                            ... Carl F. Hostetter replied ... No, it isn t: it is private in only the sense that it is kept private. Words have multiple senses that differ from context to
                            Message 13 of 16 , Mar 12, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I wrote:

                              > it is private in another sense as long as it is kept inside your
                              > head.

                              Carl F. Hostetter replied

                              > It is private in every sense so long as it is kept private.

                              No, it isn't: it is private in only the sense that it is kept
                              private. Words have multiple senses that differ from context to
                              context: as a competent lingusit, you should know that.

                              > A language that is created for private purposes and never shared
                              > with another remains both private and a language.

                              Yes indeed, but it depends in every way on your deffinition of
                              private and language. Eg. something can be at the same
                              time 'designed or intended for one's exclusive use' (= private) and
                              not 'secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others' (=
                              private). Geez...

                              PS. I am ending my subcription of both elfling-d and lambengolmor,
                              for obvious reasons better left unsaid.

                              Ondo Erulasto Tambaro (Petri Samuel Tikka)
                              http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
                            • Carl F. Hostetter
                              ... And as a competent linguist you should know that no communication is possible where participants can create their own ad hoc, private meanings for words in
                              Message 14 of 16 , Mar 12, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Mar 12, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Petri Tikka wrote:

                                >> it is private in another sense as long as it is kept inside your head.
                                >
                                > Carl F. Hostetter replied
                                >
                                >> It is private in every sense so long as it is kept private.
                                >
                                > No, it isn't: it is private in only the sense that it is kept private.
                                > Words have multiple senses that differ from context to context: as a
                                > competent lingusit, you should know that.

                                And as a competent linguist you should know that no communication is
                                possible where participants can create their own ad hoc, private
                                meanings for words in order to justify misstatements.

                                >> A language that is created for private purposes and never shared with
                                >> another remains both private and a language.
                                >
                                > Yes indeed, but it depends in every way on your deffinition of private
                                > and language. Eg. something can be at the same time 'designed or
                                > intended for one's exclusive use' (= private) and not 'secluded from
                                > the sight, presence, or intrusion of others' (=
                                > private). Geez...

                                Exactly. But your assertion was that _even_ a language created for
                                private use and kept from the knowledge of others is _not_ private:

                                > And languages are never essentially private.

                                By your own assertion and your definitions here, you're arguing that
                                _even_ a language "'designed or intended for one's exclusive use' (=
                                private)" and "'secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of
                                others' (=private)", is not private. So you've just made the argument
                                against your own case. "Geez" indeed.

                                > PS. I am ending my subcription of both elfling-d and lambengolmor, for
                                > obvious reasons better left unsaid.

                                Namely, because you can't bear it when people don't share your private,
                                ad hoc semantics, don't accept your assertions and verbal gymnastics
                                simply because they sound good to you, and/or show you to be wrong.

                                What a crushing loss to scholarship.


                                |======================================================================|
                                | Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org |
                                | |
                                | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
                                | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
                                | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
                                | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
                                | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
                                |======================================================================|


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Beregond. Anders Stenström
                                As a matter of fact, private language is a well-known concept in the philosophy of language, and the tenet that it is an impossibility is also well-known.
                                Message 15 of 16 , Mar 12, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  As a matter of fact, "private language" is a well-known concept
                                  in the philosophy of language, and the tenet that it is an
                                  impossibility is also well-known. See
                                  <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/>.
                                  The sense in which "private" is used in that context, and on
                                  which the argument for the impossibility of "private language" of
                                  course depends, was thus not construed by Petri Tikka. There
                                  are many who, on hearing or seeing the phrase "private
                                  language", will expect "private" to carry that sense.
                                  But this "private language" as conceived in philosophy was
                                  obviously not what Tolkien meant with "Private lang.".

                                  Chivalrously,

                                  Beregond
                                • Carl F. Hostetter
                                  Very well; and thanks for the link. But if that is what Petri meant, he was either uninterested in or unable to explain his meaning, beyond the assertion that
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Mar 12, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Very well; and thanks for the link.

                                    But if that is what Petri meant, he was either uninterested in or
                                    unable to explain his meaning, beyond the assertion that anything
                                    _capable_ of being communicated (even though it is not actually
                                    communicated) is never private (or "essentially private"). In the
                                    context of a practical discussion of the nature of an actual language
                                    created in private by an individual for his private amusement -- a
                                    "_secret_ vice" -- silently introducing such an irrelevant, purely
                                    philosophical term without explicit clarification and justification
                                    amounts to a sleight-of-hand, and non-sequitur.

                                    Or perhaps someone can explain how Petri's figure, intended to
                                    illustrate his point:

                                    > Eg. something can be at the same time 'designed or intended for one's
                                    > exclusive use' (= private) and not 'secluded from the sight, presence,
                                    > or intrusion of others' (= private).

                                    has any obvious (or even unobvious) relation to Wittgenstein's
                                    thought-experiment.




                                    |======================================================================|
                                    | Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org |
                                    | |
                                    | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
                                    | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
                                    | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
                                    | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
                                    | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
                                    |======================================================================|
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.