Speaking of ERBian language...
Michael Martinez
the Ape language would be the favorite one, and no such attempts would be
regarded as canonical I'm sure (at least, they are not among Tolkien fans) --
but I'm curious about how ERB fans feel about this sort of stuff.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org.........................................................
The CROKINOLE Guy
> Have there been any documented attempts to extend ERB's languages? I suppose
> the Ape language would be the favorite one, and no such attempts would be
> regarded as canonical I'm sure (at least, they are not among Tolkien fans) --
> but I'm curious about how ERB fans feel about this sort of stuff.
Other than the glossary in the back of "Thuvia"(?) and the rules for Jettan
appendix in "Chessmen" I haven't seen any...
--
The CROKINOLE Board
http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
jeff...@livenet.net
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> Have there been any documented attempts to extend ERB's languages? I suppose
> the Ape language would be the favorite one, and no such attempts would be
> regarded as canonical I'm sure (at least, they are not among Tolkien fans) --
> but I'm curious about how ERB fans feel about this sort of stuff.
>
I think one of the comic books came up with an extensive
Ape language dictionary, which went far beyond what ERB
himself came up with. (I think it's reproduced on the "Tarzan
of the Internet" web site.) For a scholarly look at the the
Barsoomian language, check out:
http://members.aol.com/JAHenning/barsoom.htm
Elmo
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5236/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Michael Martinez
>I think one of the comic books came up with an extensive
>Ape language dictionary, which went far beyond what ERB
>himself came up with. (I think it's reproduced on the "Tarzan
>of the Internet" web site.) For a scholarly look at the the
>Barsoomian language, check out:
>http://members.aol.com/JAHenning/barsoom.htm
Wow. Okay, someone may have pointed me to this site a LOOOONG time ago.
:)
I can imagine there might be some connection between SOR - A - PUS (the
tree, "sorapus") and SOM - PUS (another tree, "sompus"). But then would
there be a connection between SOR - AK (a small pet of Martian women,
"sorak") and SOR - AV (the name of an officer serving Sallensus Oll,
"Sorav")?
And if a character were named "tandar", would his name really mean
"100,000"?
Fredrik Ekman
> Have there been any documented attempts to extend ERB's languages?
I don't know about Ape Language (it has been ages since I read Tarzan)
but Martian and Venusian languages always struck me as far too
fragmentary, both regarding vocabulary and grammar, to provide a useful
basis for improvement.
Sure, Tolkien's languages have been extended to some degree, but some
of them were almost useful to begin with. Additionally, they were
created by a professional linguist, which cannot be said about Burroughs'
languages...
/F
Michael Martinez
<dwzpa48...@sally.lysator.liu.se> Fredrik did proclaim:
>
>Sure, Tolkien's languages have been extended to some degree, but some
>of them were almost useful to begin with. Additionally, they were
>created by a professional linguist, which cannot be said about Burroughs'
>languages...
Yes, but how many languages in human history have actually been created by a
professional linguist? Was ERB at so great a disadvantage as all that? Wasn't
he at least on a par as the original language makers?
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org.........................................................
John Savard
>In article <71sccd$n...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>> Have there been any documented attempts to extend ERB's languages? I suppose
>> the Ape language would be the favorite one, and no such attempts would be
>> regarded as canonical I'm sure (at least, they are not among Tolkien fans) --
>> but I'm curious about how ERB fans feel about this sort of stuff.
>I think one of the comic books came up with an extensive
>Ape language dictionary, which went far beyond what ERB
>himself came up with.
Indeed, that is true; it was the Gold Key Tarzan, during the Russ
Manning years.
But the extensions were due to Burroughs - what they did was add in a
bunch of words from the language of Pal-ul-don! Not the whole
dictionary, though, since one wouldn't expect a Mangani in Africa to
stumble across a gryf...
John Savard
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Michael Martinez
>
>But the extensions were due to Burroughs - what they did was add in a
>bunch of words from the language of Pal-ul-don! Not the whole
>dictionary, though, since one wouldn't expect a Mangani in Africa to
>stumble across a gryf...
TARZAN OF THE INTERNET says "Pal-ul-don" is the name of the country in
TARZAN THE TERRIBLE but it doesn't say what the country is. Is it one of
those famous lost cities Tarzan stumbled onto every now and then?
William George Ferguson
>>But the extensions were due to Burroughs - what they did was add in a
>>bunch of words from the language of Pal-ul-don! Not the whole
>>dictionary, though, since one wouldn't expect a Mangani in Africa to
>>stumble across a gryf...
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>TARZAN OF THE INTERNET says "Pal-ul-don" is the name of the country in
>TARZAN THE TERRIBLE but it doesn't say what the country is. Is it one of
>those famous lost cities Tarzan stumbled onto every now and then?
Every now and then being pretty much every book after about the first
four :)?
Pal-ul-don was a small country located in a small range of mountains
surrounded by a normally impenetrable swamp. It was inhabitated by
two races of tailed humans. There were also various animals that were
throwbacks to prehistoric times, including the above mentioned 'gryf'
which was a carnivorous (?!?) triceratops. Pal-ul-don had its own
language, which was actually somewhat more developed by Burroughs than
mangini. It was a sort of polynesian, make words and sentences by
stringing root pieces together, type of language, and we're given a
fair number root pieces. Pal-ul-don is literally 'land of man'.
Tarzan was taken prisoner, while unconscious, by a tribe of tailed
men, and when he escaped, leaving virtually the entire male contingent
of the tribe somewhat the worse for wear, he heard the remaining
tribes-people murmuring after him 'jad-guru-don, jad-guru-guru-don'.
A native fellow prisoner who he befriended and rescued cheerfully
translated for him, 'the terrible man, the terrible terrible man', and
immediately christened him Tarzan-jad-guru.
In the language of Pal-ul-don, Jad-bal-ja is 'the golden lion'.
Glenn Kuntz
> Yes, but how many languages in human history have actually been created by a
> professional linguist?
The only one I'm aware of is Esperanto (sp?). The only other *created* language
I'm aware of is Pig Latin (if you consider it a language). In general, language is
not created, it evolves, like a species, or a good story! ;-)
Michael Martinez
>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>>TARZAN OF THE INTERNET says "Pal-ul-don" is the name of the country in
>>TARZAN THE TERRIBLE but it doesn't say what the country is. Is it one of
>>those famous lost cities Tarzan stumbled onto every now and then?
>
>Every now and then being pretty much every book after about the first
>four :)?
Well, yes, since -- after all -- it took a while to write the books....
Thanks for the summary.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Yes, but how many languages in human history have actually been created by a
>> professional linguist?
>
>The only one I'm aware of is Esperanto (sp?). The only other *created*
>language I'm aware of is Pig Latin (if you consider it a language). In
>general, language is not created, it evolves, like a species, or a good
>story! ;-)
All language is created, and what I meant was that Burroughs doesn't seem
to have done anything different from what the original speakers of natural
(as opposed to constructed) languages did: he devised words to refer to
specific things without creating formal rules.
mac...@alaska.net
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
> In article <36443B8B...@frontiernet.net>, Glenn Kuntz <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, but how many languages in human history have actually been created by a
> >> professional linguist?
> >
> >The only one I'm aware of is Esperanto (sp?). The only other *created*
> >language I'm aware of is Pig Latin (if you consider it a language). In
> >general, language is not created, it evolves, like a species, or a good
> >story! ;-)
>
> All language is created, and what I meant was that Burroughs doesn't seem
> to have done anything different from what the original speakers of natural
> (as opposed to constructed) languages did: he devised words to refer to
> specific things without creating formal rules.
>
FWIW, Zamenhof was not a "professional linguist"; he was an eye-doctor. Hiw
father had been a language teacher, and Z was certainly a polyglot and
intensely interested in languages, but he was not trained in linguistics.
(see <http://www.esperanto.net>).
OTOH Jespersen was, and he created Novial; and some professional linguists
were involved in the creation of Interlingua. (see
<http://interlingua.com>).
Fredrik Ekman
> Yes, but how many languages in human history have actually been created by a
> professional linguist? Was ERB at so great a disadvantage as all that?
Of course he was. I am not a linguist myself and not prepared to go into
any heated debate on this subject. However, even I can see that Venusian
is rather ridiculous an attempt.
The difference between Burroughs and a linguist (eg Tolkien) is that the
latter would be able to more thoroughly understand the underlying
processes that govern natural language creation. Venusian and Martian are
just a number of words and grammar rules heaped together with no apparent
reason or history behind them.
Of course, most of Burroughs' beliefs on this subject probably refected
the popular belief of the time, so he is not really "at fault".
/F
John Savard
>All language is created, and what I meant was that Burroughs doesn't seem
>to have done anything different from what the original speakers of natural
>(as opposed to constructed) languages did: he devised words to refer to
>specific things without creating formal rules.
Well, he did create new words.
But Tolkien, from studying how natural languages grow and develop, did
not merely create the Elvish words for a few things, but instead
created texts - short pieces of poetry - in these languages, and he
created a group of several related languages with a shared history and
words that appeared in changed forms in several of them.
Of course, there's a point where a pun between Brandywine and
Baranduin is explained by saying that the 'real' Common Speech and
Elvish names of the river sound completely different, but like each
other (after all, the Hobbits couldn't have been speaking _English_)
but while the languages invented by Burroughs, like the maps of the
worlds he invented, are of interest to the Burroughs fan,
the fact that Tolkien put a lot more work into his imaginary languages
- he toyed with them long before he thought of writing a book - than
Burroughs both can't be ignored - and is the reason why some Tolkien
fans take their study of his invented languages than Burroughs fans go
with his. There's much more to work with and start from.
John Savard
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Michael Martinez
>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote, in part:
>
>>All language is created, and what I meant was that Burroughs doesn't seem
>>to have done anything different from what the original speakers of natural
>>(as opposed to constructed) languages did: he devised words to refer to
>>specific things without creating formal rules.
>
>Well, he did create new words.
>
>But Tolkien, from studying how natural languages grow and develop, did
>not merely create the Elvish words for a few things, but instead
>created texts - short pieces of poetry - in these languages, and he
>created a group of several related languages with a shared history and
>words that appeared in changed forms in several of them.
You guys are comparing ERB to Tolkien and I'm comparing him to the first
makers of words, who were at least as unqualified to construct a new
language as ERB (if not more so -- he should at least have been able to
identify the 8 parts of speech in the English language).
Sure, Tolkien's languages will sound more "real" and "natural" to us
because have the experience of at least one full language (English, or
whatever our native language is), but what guide and education did the
original language makers have to benefit from?
jeff...@livenet.net
Fredrik Ekman <ek...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> The difference between Burroughs and a linguist (eg Tolkien) is that the
> latter would be able to more thoroughly understand the underlying
> processes that govern natural language creation. Venusian and Martian are
> just a number of words and grammar rules heaped together with no apparent
> reason or history behind them.
Don't forget the language of Pellucidar -- which is the same everywhere
inside the hollow Earth (just as the same brand of Martian is spoken
everywhere on Barsoom.) ERB came up with the rather remarkable notion
that the language evolved the same everywhere because, well, it just
did. Only one word could describe an object, and so that is the one
that was chosen. Everywhere. Of course, I'm sure ERB did this so his
heroes didn't have to learn a new language every time they went wandering.
Elmo
William George Ferguson
>You guys are comparing ERB to Tolkien and I'm comparing him to the first
>makers of words, who were at least as unqualified to construct a new
>language as ERB (if not more so -- he should at least have been able to
>identify the 8 parts of speech in the English language).
Some key differences between ERB and the 'first makers of words'.
There was only one ERB working over the course of a few months to
write a book, while there were thousands of them to develop a language
organically over the course of centuries of trial and error.
The big difference between ERB and Tolkien, and why everyone is going
to bring up Tolkien when the subject of created languages in
literature comes up, is that ERB, like most authors who 'create' a
language, was just trying to sketch the appearance of a language. He
created some words, and maybe a small number of grammar rules, but
there was no depth behind them, no derivations, no variation of usage
and pronuciation from place to place and time to time, no growth.
ERB's languages aren't 'alive'.
Tolkien, unlike almost every other writer who has used created
languages in their books, did not create the language to give depth to
his stories. He created his stories to give depth to his languages.
His created languages are 'alive' in a way that ordinarily a writer is
simply not going to be able to duplicate. the words of his languages,
especially the 'newer' languages, Westron and Sindarin, have complex
etymologies. For example, the Sindarin name Thingol is an elision of
the quendi Sindacollo (Greymantle), which was a descriptive applied to
Elwe after his hair turned white, on his first meeting Melian. Over
time 'Elwe' elided to 'Elu', and ultimately was lost entirely in
referring to the King of Doriath.
There is no word in any ERBian language that you can do that with.
There is no word in a naturally evolved language that you can't do
that with.
Michael Martinez
<364d22c9....@enews.newsguy.com> fr...@primenet.com did proclaim:
>
>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>>You guys are comparing ERB to Tolkien and I'm comparing him to the first
>>makers of words, who were at least as unqualified to construct a new
>>language as ERB (if not more so -- he should at least have been able to
>>identify the 8 parts of speech in the English language).
>
>
>Some key differences between ERB and the 'first makers of words'.
>There was only one ERB working over the course of a few months to
>write a book, while there were thousands of them to develop a language
>organically over the course of centuries of trial and error.
Yes and no. People didn't wait for the thousands of other people to get the
work done. Somebody somewhere went "Ugh!" or "Ook!" or "Gak!" in a consistent
way so as to give it meaning and language was born. Once they figured out they
could do it with more sounds, it may not have taken people long to devise a
simple language.
[snip of Tolkien points -- his languages have histories of development and
progression, ERB's do not]
>There is no word in any ERBian language that you can do that with.
>There is no word in a naturally evolved language that you can't do
>that with.
There is no word in any KNOWN naturally evolved language that you can't do that
with would be a better comparison. Language had to start somewhere.
ERB's languages certainly don't resemble natural language precisely BECAUSE of
the lack of historical development and progression. That's a good point. But
we do have parallels for what ERB did which didn't even arise until after his
death: computer languages. Today's languages represent the results of natural
evolution, but the first languages had to start from scratch.
I would say that the study of ERB's languages should not be viewed as limited so
much as required to move in a direction different from the study of Tolkien's
languages. ERB wasn't trying to concoct a language that could be spoken by his
readers, but he was trying to concoct a language that made sense to a degree.
At least, he used the roots he devised to make complex words (or devised roots
from the segments of his complex words). That effort may pale by comparison
with Tolkien, but it follows the same process as natural (and computer) language
development.
You start somewhere. ERB just didn't follow the road very far.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org.........................................................
Julie Lowry
> The big difference between ERB and Tolkien, and why everyone is going
> to bring up Tolkien when the subject of created languages in
> literature comes up, is that ERB, like most authors who 'create' a
> language, was just trying to sketch the appearance of a language. He
> created some words, and maybe a small number of grammar rules, but
> there was no depth behind them, no derivations, no variation of usage
> and pronuciation from place to place and time to time, no growth.
> ERB's languages aren't 'alive'.
The more obvious difference between Tolkien and Burroughs is that
Tolkien labored for years over a comparatively small body of work, while
Burroughs cranked out novels for immediate publication to pay his
bills. Creating a language takes both time and the author's belief that
his audience will recognize and appreciate the effort. Burroughs,
writing for the pulp trade, had neither.
Greg
Fredrik Ekman
> Yes and no. People didn't wait for the thousands of other people to get the
> work done. Somebody somewhere went "Ugh!" or "Ook!" or "Gak!" in a consistent
> way so as to give it meaning and language was born. Once they figured out they
> could do it with more sounds, it may not have taken people long to devise a
> simple language.
But you fail to understand an important point in language evolution here.
Natural languages are NOT created. People back in the early stone age just
did not sit down and say to each other "Hey, guys! Let's see if we can't
put toghether a language here so we can all discuss the finer points of
mammoth hunting." It is even questionable where you draw the line between
an actual language and a simpler communications system such as is used by
most animals. Early humans might have had sounds and gestures for
communicating ideas such as "Watch out or I'll hit you over the head!" or
"Hey, gal! Come over here and let's have some fun!" but the step from
there to a full language is not something that just happened over the
course of a generation. Language is not an invention but an evolutionary
process somewhat comparable to sight or other senses.
/F
Michael Martinez
I understand the process quite well. And it did have to start with a
single sound somewhere. Yes, we don't know if the animals were using
simple language before humans -- we know that whales and dolphins make what
appear to be meaningful sounds, but these are equally modern creatures.
How long have they been doing it, and wouldn't they have started out with
one sound as well?
Some one or some thing somewhere gave meaning to a sound for the first
time, and other sounds were given meaning for the first time, and thus
language was created. It did not evolve from anything previous because
nothing preceded it in which sound had meaning.
Maybe it goes back 1,000,000,000 years to when the first creature rasped a
certain way. All language could have evolved from that first *made* sound,
but human language must be distinguished from animal language by some
arbitrary standard just as we distinguish between, say, modern Italian and
ancient Latin.
I cannot argue with the fact that we can only apply arbitrary distinctions,
but then, the distinction between a constructed language and natural
language is just as arbirtrary. Constructed languages are devised
according to the knowledge we possess of natural language, so constructed
languages represent an evolution of natural language, just as different
(human-produced) breeds of dogs and cats represent an evolution of the
canine and feline species.
Alan
wrote:
Having seen a gory Tolkien vs RE Howard thread in another group
recently, I hope this doesn't get too heated. But JRR's "small body of
work" adds up to several thousand pages, which is surpassed in volume
by ERB's over 100 volumes, but is a respectable output nevertheless.
Julie Lowry
> >The more obvious difference between Tolkien and Burroughs is that
> >Tolkien labored for years over a comparatively small body of work, while
> >Burroughs cranked out novels for immediate publication to pay his
> >bills. Creating a language takes both time and the author's belief that
> >his audience will recognize and appreciate the effort. Burroughs,
> >writing for the pulp trade, had neither.
> >Greg
>
> Having seen a gory Tolkien vs RE Howard thread in another group
> recently, I hope this doesn't get too heated. But JRR's "small body of
> work" adds up to several thousand pages, which is surpassed in volume
> by ERB's over 100 volumes, but is a respectable output nevertheless.
Hence my use of the word "comparatively." Don't be concerned about the
exchange getting "heated." I enjoy both authors. I was just comparing
their work.
Greg
Alan
>Sure, Tolkien's languages will sound more "real" and "natural" to us
>because have the experience of at least one full language (English, or
>whatever our native language is), but what guide and education did the
>original language makers have to benefit from?
Brings to mind one of PJ Farmer's pseudo-Tarzans (ie in all but name)
in /Time's Last Gift/, where Tarzan and some scientists travel back
12,000 years (IIRC), ending up in pre-Opar. The linguist decides to
"improve" the native people's simple language by teaching them some
more structured words and grammar, in the end it turns out that they
are the proto-Indo-Aryans, and their created language the root for all
modern Indo-European languages. (I may have some details wrong, a few
decades since I read this.) The grandfather paradox again.
If you're wondering what happened to Tarzan, he decided to come back
to the present day the slow way, by living through the whole 12000
years, in the process becoming almost every hero in history (Moses,
Odysseus, etc...).