#linguistic richness

[translationday]

Workshop on Cultural and linguistic diversity in the era of digitalization and emerging technologies.

Cross-perspectives on the challenges of cultural and linguistic diversity in the context of developing a new roadmap for digital cooperation.

The digital transition represents a tremendous opportunity to bring people from all over the world together. Thanks to technological innovations, the flow of data, content and information generated by a wide variety of users is constantly increasing, paradoxically accelerating a process of standardization in the virtual world that impoverishes the linguistic and cultural richness of the real world. The unique characteristics of societies tend to erode as borders are reshaped by the digital transformation.

Objectives:

Raise awareness of the risks and opportunities of digital technologies on cultural and linguistic diversity;

Explore operational solutions to eliminate all obstacles, including linguistic and cultural ones, to achieve inclusive digital transition;

Identify relevant objectives, commitments, and actions for a Global Digital Compact to promote, protect, and preserve multilingualism and cultural diversity in the digital world, in the framework of the ongoing negotiating sessions of the Global Digital Compact.

Documents: Concept note.

[babybells123]

There is something so beautifully anvilicious about these quotes;

" I am a bastard too now, just like him. Oh, it would be so sweet, to see him once again. But of course that could never be. Alayne Stone had no brothers, baseborn or otherwise." (AFFC, Alayne II)

"The dream was sweet . . . but Winterfell would never be his to show. It belonged to his brother, the King in the North. He was a Snow, not a Stark. Bastard, oathbreaker, and turncloak . . ." (ASOS, Jon V)

Both Jon and Sansa are yearning for Winterfell and the feelings/memories/family associated -but both are intrinsically restricting themselves based off of their bastard status. The notion of Sansa being the only Stark (and character) to transition from a high-born noble lady to a baseborn bastard cannot be overlooked. (And then of course, the notion of Jon being the only Stark (and character) to transition from baseborn bastard to lord commander, cannot be overlooked.) Jon has risen to the top whilst Sansa has lowered to the bottom.

She (GRRM) makes the comparison to Jon herself, meaning that GRRM makes the comparison himself. this isn't something interpreted by fans - it is right there, explicitly within the text.

Sansa's desire to reunite with Jon is "sweet," it'd be almost like a dream come true. Jon's "dream was sweet" as well. But "Winterfell could never be his" and seeing her brother once again "of course, could never be" (possible).

And then later on in the text, Jon is offered the chance to become Jon Stark, and have Winterfell in name. Thus his decidedly unsubtle desire (that he dismisses as an entirely impossible dream) is fulfilled by Stannis' offer, even though he eventually rejects it in truth "Winterfell belongs to my sister Sansa."

There is also the quote that precedes Jon's "sweet dream," where he fantasises about a beautiful little romance with Ygritte; showing her a flower from the glass gardens, feasting her in the great hall, bathing in the hot pools, and loving beneath the heart tree. This dream is directly connected to Winterfell and is obviously sexually + romantically charged.

So whilst Jon's desire is partially fulfilled (even if he doesn't accept it) can we possibly assume that Sansa's simultaneously unsubtle "that could never be" may also be fulfilled? Since GRRM seems to really be beating us over the head with how 'that could never happen' from Sansa's internal monologue "no one will ever marry me for love" is reiterated multiple times (just you wait sweet one!) and Sansa desiring to reunite with her brother who she has modelled her bastardry after, who is supposedly the only brother left to her, is immediately dismissed by Sansa because she's accepted the fact that she'll never be with her family again, (and that she shall never encounter true love).

The connections only keep connecting!

So to summarise:

Jon & Sansa both have "sweet" dreams/desires that connect to Winterfell/family.

Jon's dream is sexually/romantically charged, involves a red-headed girl, and establishes Jon's suppressed desires as actually romantic.

Both Jon and Sansa are bastards in these contexts.

Both Jon and Sansa woefully dismiss these dreams/desires as impossible as "that could never be" and "it could never be his to show."

Jon's desire however is later offered on a silver platter by Stannis Baratheon, to which he mulls over and states that he "has always wanted it" (to be his). Though he later refuses Stannis' offer on the basis that "Winterfell belongs to Sansa" - twice over he says this.

Jon 'giving' Winterfell to Sansa is in direct contrast to Robb (Sansa's image of an honourably idealistic older brother) flat out rejecting Sansa's claim on the basis of her marriage to Tyrion.

Jon thus establishes himself as the only character who respects and protects Sansa's claim. Who does not abuse or exploit it. (Even though he was given the opportunity for it and it's been his innermost desire since childhood.)

In a way, this further conveys Jon as Sansa's unspoken, subconscious hero who is protecting her interests and instilling all those heroic ideals (such as the Janos Slynt situation) - though she does not realise it and has accepted that "there are no heroes" at all. But Jon is the true hero, hiding in plain sight.

So, whilst Sansa believes there are no heroes, Jon fulfils those ideals. Whilst Sansa believes no one will marry her for love, Jon exists as the embodiment of all the chivalric, romantic ideals that she's so desperately wanted.

Can we now assume that Sansa believing that she will essentially never see Jon again as entirely anvilicious as she will in fact see Jon again?

GEORGE I'M IN YOUR WALLS.

[lingthusiasm]

Lingthusiasm Episode 87: If I were an irrealis episode

Language lets us talk about things that aren't, strictly speaking, entirely real. Sometimes that's an imaginative object (is a toy sword a real sword? how about Excalibur?). Other times, it's a hypothetical situation (such as "if it rains, we'll cancel the picnic" - but neither the picnic nor the rain have happened yet. And they might never happen. But also they might!). Languages have lots of different ways of talking about different kinds of speculative events, and together they're called the irrealis.

In this episode, your hosts Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne get enthusiastic about some of our favourite examples under the irrealis umbrella. We talk about various things that we can mean by "reality", such as how existing fictional concepts, like goblins playing Macbeth, differ from newly-constructed fictions, like our new creature the Frenumblinger. We also talk about hypothetical statements using "if" (including the delightfully-named "biscuit conditionals), and using the "if I were a rich man" (Fiddler on the Roof) to "if I was a rich girl" (Gwen Stefani) continuum to track the evolution of the English subjunctive. Finally, a few of our favourite additional types of irrealis categories: the hortative, used to urge or exhort (let's go!), the optative, to express wishes and hopes (if only...), the dubitative, for when you doubt something, and the desiderative (I wish...).

Click here for a link to this episode in your podcast player of choice or read the transcript here.

Announcements:

Thank you to everyone who shared Lingthusiasm with a friend or on social media for our seventh anniversary! It was great to see what you love about Lingthusiasm and which episodes you chose to share. We hope you enjoyed the warm fuzzies!

In this month’s bonus episode, Gretchen gets enthusiastic about swearing (including rude gestures) in fiction with science fiction and fantasy authors Jo Walton and Ada Palmer, authors of the Thessaly books and Terra Ignota series, both super interesting series we've ling-nerded out about before on the show. We talk about invented swear words like "frak" and "frell", sweary lexical gaps (why don't we swear with "toe jam!"), and interpreting the nuances of regional swear words like "bloody" in fiction.

Join us on Patreon now to get access to this and 80+ other bonus episodes! You’ll also get access to the Lingthusiasm Discord server where you can chat with other language nerds.

Here are the links mentioned in the episode:

'Irrealis' entry on Wikipedia

'How do you get someone to care about Shakespeare? Two words: Goblin Macbeth' on CBC

xkcd comic 'Conditionals'

'Pedantic about biscuit conditionals' post on Language Log

'The pragmatics of biscuit conditionals' by Michael Franke

Lingthusiasm episode 'This time it gets tense - The grammar of time'

'Realis and Irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality' by Jennifer R. Elliott

'If all the raindrops' on YouTube

'If I Were a Rich Man (song)' entry on Wikipedia

'Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)' entry on Wikipedia

'Louchie Lou & Michie One' entry on Wikipedia

'Louchie Lou & Michie One - Rich Girl' on YouTube

'Semi-Toned - Rich Girl (acapella)' on YouTube

'Subjunctive mood' entry on Wikipedia

'Céline Dion - Pour que tu m'aimes encore' on YouTube

WALS entry for 'Feature 73A: The Optative'

Lingthusiasm bonus episode 'How we make Lingthusiasm transcripts - Interview with Sarah Dopierala'

Lingthusiasm episode 'Listen to the imperatives episode'

'Dubitative' entry on Wikipedia

'A grammatical overview of Yolmo (Tibeto-Burman)' entry on WikiJournal of Humanities

You can listen to this episode via Lingthusiasm.com, Soundcloud, RSS, Apple Podcasts/iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also download an mp3 via the Soundcloud page for offline listening.

To receive an email whenever a new episode drops, sign up for the Lingthusiasm mailing list.

You can help keep Lingthusiasm ad-free, get access to bonus content, and more perks by supporting us on Patreon.

Lingthusiasm is on Bluesky, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon, and Tumblr. Email us at contact [at] lingthusiasm [dot] com

Gretchen is on Bluesky as @GretchenMcC and blogs at All Things Linguistic.

Lauren is on Bluesky as @superlinguo and blogs at Superlinguo.

Lingthusiasm is created by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. Our senior producer is Claire Gawne, our production editor is Sarah Dopierala, our production assistant is Martha Tsutsui Billins, and our editorial assistant is Jon Kruk. Our music is ‘Ancient City’ by The Triangles.

This episode of Lingthusiasm is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license (CC 4.0 BY-NC-SA).

[owari--hajimari]

1. EUPHEMISM. 2. the use of “me” here is really something. he could’ve said “someone” or “a guy”, a layer of abstraction that would cement the joke, but no, “me”. it’s intimate. it rings true. neku always proves entertaining to joshua specifically

[venomouschocolate]

Why Do They Talk Like That: a stream of consciousness

Fantasy linguistics are so hard like where do you draw the line... I mean none of my characters are referencing major theistic religions or using real life loanwords or expletives but then there's quote-unquote fun stuff like "sadism" or "lunatic" or "sinister". i.e the Marquis de Sade does not exist in this world, but the concept of pleasure from cruelty does... Latin is not a language there, but I, personally, am writing in English, which has much of its etymology rooted in Latin (as well as pretty much every other language ever), even if there is no hate for left-handed people or indeed the left in this world, so "sinister" is inexplicable in itself now (odd how the left has historically been demonised and that it's also the socialist side of the political spectrum. not that odd really. thank you robert walpole?). The same with "lunatic": the moon is literally worshipped in some areas of my world, but it's still a term characters use, despite the moon having positive connotations.

Where Do You Draw The Line... I can't write in a conlang because a) I am not masochistic but b) I want my work to actually be read. You can imply different languages with accents and word choice and compound words, but ultimately I am writing in the same language for all (despite being bilingual, go me!) and ultimately that language is one that exists only in our world and not in the one that I've created.

While we're here, let's talk about swearing (cursing if you're american?) in fantasy settings. I don't mean "oh my god/s", that's arguably blasphemy and certainly not explicit; I don't mean "bloody" (not really explicit either) because frankly that does tend to fit a fantasy vibe with the type of characters likely to use it (considering the real world stereotypes and thus the archetypes an author will write using it). I mean expletives like "fuck", "bitch", "shit": STOP USING THEM. you absolute buffoons.

Recently I read a fantasy novel which included a whole magic system and several countries with absolute monarchies, etc, and they kept using expletives and it just did not work, and it never does. A step back: I believe that using expletives when writing in a real world setting (provided it's period-believable, of course) can work, and often (not always, not even mostly) works - I do it myself. However, believable expletives and exclamations and intensifiers can and sometimes do make or break worldbuilding, at least for me. The worldbuilding in the novel was fine, good even! But every time the (twenty-eight-year-old) mc used "fucking" or "bitch", I was immediately yanked out of the story and into reality. It was like reading a period piece (say, in the 19th-early 20th century) and seeing "bitch" in the expletive (slur) sense. I don't care whether it would be used: I don't BELIEVE that it would be.

Suspension of disbelief is everything, which (as a theatre kid...) is, I suspect, why musical films don't work: we're primed for a more true-to-life piece, whereas in a theatre, we're prepared to cast a lot more aside. We KNOW they're actors, we know bursting into song is unrealistic, but it's the stage! We believe it anyway. Seeing a fantasy character, particularly one that was meant to be a minor royal, consistently THINK in expletives (and not just exclaim them!) felt to me like watching Mean Girls The Musical The Movie. I did not believe the magic (which was a major plot point so it kind of sucked). I did not believe that the characters saying "bitch" and "fuck" would say those words, especially since those characters were almost exclusively limited to the middle-aged queen, an almost thirty-year-old established to be groomed into mild-mannered obedience, the former queen's guard and a (bastard) prince. I did not believe that the characters whose thoughts I was reading would think them, and thus I did not believe in the story.

If you're going to create a prose-based world intended to be separate from our own in terms of religion/history/sociopolitical structure/magic/etc, you NEED to think about the linguistics. I'm not saying think HARD or be super mega creative: in my sky-worship country, a common exclamation is "stars-be", short for "stars-be-dimmed", ditto "skies-be" and "skies-be-felled". My sun-based little sillies go "be-set" as in "sun-be-set"; the only country in a technological revolution (also the only country with guns): "I'm not wired that way"; "he's gearing for a fight"; "I was shooting for you". Furthermore, when explaining their culture in other languages, they struggle for words, because, for example, a train is a monolingual concept (one falters when about to describe someone as a "train wreck" and just goes "sorry"). It's not clever, it's not particularly original, but, in my opinion, it makes the language, and by extension the world, more believable.

While I'm mid-rant: there's a marked difference between characters of different class and upbringing. My more religious, self-righteous queen of skycountry says "my stars": she rules the country, she is a little crazy insane, she feels that she owns the sky, too. A less-educated character uses slang like "lunar", "feared", "heartfulness" where his posh boy counterpart says "insane", "afraid" and "empathy". And yes, I am totally neurodivergent, and I think about details, and I also study the development of the English language and want to continue to do so at university, so of course I am more drawn to it, but at the end of the day if you're writing prose then the words are really bloody important.

TLDR: worldbuilding is hard; do your high fantasy (or even low fantasy) characters NEED to say "fuck"?

[sophsun1]

no one does realistic arguing between family quite like the bear. the lightning fast insults going back and forth, cutting low down to the bone and not letting the other have the last word. chefs kiss <3

[mishkakagehishka]

Idc anymore i think i'm a good enough writer that i can say that when i noticed the pattern in what exactly makes a book "good" on booktok (and, bc of that, what makes it popular and top bestseller lists), it feels almost demeaning and denigrating to the entire craft. Idk if i should blame the way tiktok-esque social media has utterly rotted everyone's ability to concentrate and read more than three sentences, but literally none of those books are objectively good.

(Yes, yes, art is subjective. HOWEVER. Art is subjective when you look at style, at themes, at motifs, at plots and characters. Art is still a craft, it still requires skill. I've seen beyond the tiktok quotes of these books. Not even their editors are good given the amount of typos/spelling mistakes. That is not something that you should find in a traditionally published book.)

You look at these books, and you know the only reason for their existence is to make money. I cannot and will not accept that as art.

(I'm on Tumblr, of course I have to explain every point. Artists who make money off their art =/= people who only create art meant to be profitable. There is a difference between an artist who hopes to monetise doing what they love, who creates what they wish to see more of and who happens to then create something that other people wish to see more of, and a person who looks at what's trending and decides that making an unholy frankenstein's monster of a book that mashes all those trending tropes and motifs together would get them rich quick. The fact that a lot of these booktok books become popular because of nepotism is just the cherry on top. It's soulless.)

And to finally say what I wanted to say, it's because none of these books have any deeper message or even artistic value to them. You will find a few out of context quotes or paragraphs, ones written specifically so they'd look deep and beautiful when taken out of context, so that people would post them, so that people would buy the books. Entire books written just so those few lines could become viral and make cash. It cannot even be compared to a hook line writers would post to get people interested in their works, because in booktok's case, those are the only lines of quality and in the context itself, they are often out of place and forced.

I just hate booktok, i hate what modern social media has done to art. It's all created to be quickly consumed, for the few ☆aesthetic☆ glances, and then discarded. Just to make more money for those who are already nepo babies. As if artists needed more obstacles to jump over.

[writerystuff]

LINGUISTIC HISTORY LESSON

It was on this day in 1066 that William the Conqueror of Normandy arrived on British soil. He defeated the British in the Battle of Hastings, and on Christmas Day he was crowned King of England in Westminster Abby. What nobody knew at the time was how much this would affect the English language. The British back then were speaking a combination of Saxon and Old Norse. The Normans spoke French. Over time, the languages blended, and as a result English became a language incredibly rich in synonyms. Because the French speakers were aristocrats, the French words often became the fancy words for things. The Normans gave us “mansion”; the Saxons gave us “house.” The Normans gave us “beef”; the Saxons gave us, “cow.”

The English language has gone on accepting additions to its vocabulary ever since, and it now contains more than a million words, making it one of the most diverse languages on Earth. Writers have been arguing for hundreds of years about whether this is a good thing.

The critic Cyril Connolly wrote, “The English language is like a broad river … being polluted by a string of refuse-barges tipping out their muck.” But Walt Whitman said, “The English language is the accretion and growth of every dialect, race, and range of time, and is both the free and compacted composition of all.” And the poet Derek Walcott said, “The English language is nobody’s special property. It is the property of the imagination: it is the property of the language itself.” (x)

[friendofthecrows]

Choosing a topic for my PHIL Practical Reasoning class and they're using a pre-made NYT topic list. I was enjoying the rich variety of interesting and frequently controversial topics when I saw the following:

I bluescreeened for a moment ...Did anyone ever actually think swear words are shocking???

Then I remembered NYT is based in New York and mostly has a middle/upper-class distribution. My family is from a series of very rural and very poor *Northern WI logging and fishing towns*...yeah you could say the culture is a bit different.

[jitterbugbear]

as of yet cuntitled... is that anything

[francepittoresque]

PROVERBE | Charbonnier est maître chez lui ➽ https://bit.ly/Proverbe-Charbonnier-Maitre L’homme le plus pauvre a le droit d’être le maître chez lui comme l’homme le plus riche. Un fait qui se passa au XVIe siècle, entre un charbonnier et le roi François Ier donna, dit-on, lieu à notre proverbe

[finnritter]

Day 3 of me attempting to learn Quenya: I love that I inevitably have to learn all about its language history as well bc otherwise all the stem variation makes no sense

[ladymordecai]

Honestly, I think the misunderstanding is rooted in a natural human difficulty with understanding the sheer size difference between 65 thousand and 65 million, let alone 65 billion.

To someone accustomed to 17k, 65k is a comprehensible number--when I was making that, I could understand what having 4x as much money could have done. I could easily picture what I could do with quadruple the money I had. It wouldn't be perfect--the above story shows that it wouldn't be--but it was easy to understand how much better it would be.

And 170k would be life-changingly amazing if you're used to 17k--literally ten times what you have. It's a comprehensible amazing, and it would be amazing for both the person with 17k and 65k--it would provide security that's impossible with less money. So it's easy to feel resentful of people who make 4x or 10x what you make--how dare they be less than satisfied with money that would rock your world??

The problem is when we move out of the easily-comprehensible amounts.

Linguistically, in English, it sounds like 17 million should be something like 100x 17k--after all, it's the next number-name. But no--17m is ONE THOUSAND TIMES more money than 17k. There's two "steps" between 17k and 17m that aren't there linguistically. (170k and 1.7m)

And like. I can almost, allllllllmost picture that--how my life would change with 17 million dollars a year. Heck, I could make 17 million dollars last the rest of my life! I could help all my friends and my entire family! The world opens up at that point!

It feels like being in a fairy tale, like being Cinderella marrying the prince.

But it isn't.

17 billion is marrying the prince, and that's an order of magnitude bigger than anything we've talked about.

17 billion is ONE MILLION TIMES more than 17 thousand.

My imagination breaks down. What would you even do with that kind of money?? And even though we know the answer is "anything you want," it's so so hard to picture what that would be when you're living paycheck to paycheck and worried about becoming homeless and what if that tooth gets infected? What if you get in a car accident and can't drive to work? 17b is so far away from your experiences it's not even worth daydreaming about. You want 170k, heck, even 65k or 40k would be so so good and would solve all of your immediate issues--you could save money, you could go to the dentist, you could afford a new car--you might need loans for those things, but you'd qualify for them and be able to pay them.

It sounds like the lap of fucking luxury to have 4x the resources you have. It's so easy to resent those people, who you actually see and interact with, who complain about problems you wish you had.

So our human brains lump them all together. They could all fix the problems you have instantly, right?! So they're all rich assholes who don't know what REAL problems are!

I get it, I've been there, I've made poverty wages and hauled myself into not-really-comfortable lower-middle class, I've daydreamed about what I could do with 65k a year or 170k a year. I'm aware of how lucky I've been to have the supports I do, that enabled me to do that at all.

But my enemy is not my cousin, who's also a nurse, who's raising three kids on that salary while her husband apprentices at his dad's blue collar business. My enemy is not my dentist, who makes 4x what I do, or even the person who won the lottery once, who owns a couple fancy cars and a couple nice houses and can send their kids to college without loans.

My enemies are the people who own all the rest of us. Who buy and sell corporations. Who make, literally, a million times more money than a comfortable lower-middle class person. Not a million more dollars, a million times more. We struggle to survive on their pocket change while they win the lottery every year.

I understand, so much, how viscerally painful it can be to watch someone who makes money that would change your life complain about theirs. But the thing is, to the actual rich, none of us make more than pocket change.

We have to understand that to move forward. We need all the allies we can get.

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[softgrungeprophet]

getting into the nitty gritty of TJ's transmutation powers is tough for me, a dummy

[bixiaoshi]

why are masters degrees so expensive i want a masters degree so bad

[diamondnokouzai]

i hate descriptivism i hate descriptivism