Representative Curtis:
First of all, I appreciate what you have done for Provo as mayor and you have been a much better representative for UT-3 than your predecessor. That being said, recent comments made by President Trump are very disturbing, and I feel that a condemnation is appropriate. I am not a fan of Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, or Omar. However, President Trump racist twitter attacks on these individuals (telling them to return to their countries, among other things) do not represent Utah at all. We a state with a proud immigrant tradition and a long respect for religious freedom.
Furthermore, today President Trump accused Representative Omar of being an al-Qaeda sympathizer (Link to the speech https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1150814058268037120). As members of minority religious group, we cannot tolerate these sorts of attacks. My ancestors (and yours as well) were driven out of the United States to the Great Basin because other people felt that they could not be welcome in American society. Even today, some people of the church still spread rumors about terrorist groups and paint us as sympathizers of terrorist attacks like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. What President Trump did in this speech is very similar to sort of slander that our people suffer. We need to stand up for all religious minorities and their privilege to worship how, where or what they may, without being attacked for their beliefs (and there is no reason to believe that Representative Omar supports al-Qaeda except that President Trump thinks all Muslims support al-Qaeda). Joseph Smith and Brighman Young clearly taught that even in Zion, all religions would be protected and have a say within government and therefore we must strive to allow this in these times as well.
Please stand up for the values that have made Utah one of the most successful states in the Union, despite being outcasts in the desert. Please demonstrate the rest of the country that in Utah, we respect people of all races and religions. Please show your charity towards all people and reprove President Trump with sharpness.
I believe in Utah and I believe in you,
[Name Removed]
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, July 15, 2019
Friday, July 14, 2017
The Problem of Polysynthesis
I hold many controversial opinions. One of them is polysynthetic is a bad term, not just because of it's vagueness but because of what it signals, especially in conlanging. Anyway, this argument with some people got out of hand (#selfexaminationhurts) (I said some dumb things too) so I never really got explain why it is bad beyond the vagueness.
Here's the first thing I never sent and then I'll follow up with some other ideas I've had since then:
"Anyway, my point is that even now, the languages we choose to label as polysynthetic (especially taking the large amount of morphemes approach) tend to fall on minority and especially disenfranchised groups. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if there was actually an agreed on definition for polysynthesis. But there isn't, because whenever someone tries to come up with something, other people get angry because their language gets excluded (the biggest example of this being Baker and his exclusion of Inuit languages) or because a language they don't consider polysynthetic is included. So we are left with a category that means "lots of morphemes and if feels that way". Which then brings us back to the point that "feels that way", for whatever reason, closely aligns with "languages spoken by minority groups". So we have a category that (like all morphological typologies, mind you) doesn't tell us really much of anything about the languages classified in it, except that 1) they have long words with multiple morphemes; 2) are not placed with the other languages for some reason.
And that's crux of it. The category doesn't tell us anything that synthetic (here being agglutinative and fusional) doesn't already tell us. Yet people defend it so viciously and want their language to be in the category. Why?"
Well, a big part of it is what I call "fetishization of the exotic" (and I am guilty of it too). Polysynthesis is seen as something cool, so you want your language in it (especially for conlanging). It is seen as cool because it is different from IE (and especially English) therefore something you want to be. And that's where the underlying "racism" (for lack of a better term) comes in. It doesn't mean that the linguists/enthusiasts are being racist, but they are, because of the way the terms has been used, perpetuating stereotypes and signaling certain ideas (namely primativity/noble savage/north americanness) through the use of the term "polysynthesis". It is the "exotic" that really binds the different types of polysynthesis together, more so than head-marking, polypersonal agreement or noun-incorporation.
Why is this important? Well, the category "polysynthesis" hurts conlanging and reduces its diversity. How? First of all, since there is little if any actual tendencies that fit for polysynthesis, it isn't signaling features for the most part. Instead it signals that you want your lang to be North American-like, especially in a Salishanesque way. This is fine and all, but it further reduces the amount of languages people learn about and makes them think that polylangs actually have many binding features. It also means that they are less likely to learn about features not found in those languages. For example, I did an informal survey on switch reference (with a bunch of polylang enthusiats) and none of us could think of any conlang with a switch reference system (other than my own, in progress one). Why? I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the primary references for polysynthesis don't have it, even though it is very common in polylangs in other parts of the world (like New Guinea) and even in the United States! In all this reduces the diversity of conlangs (I've seen one papualang (excluding my own) and none based on Australian langs, for instance) because people have an incomplete view of what "polysynthesis" really is and don't realize it.
Fetishization of the exotic aside, polysynthesis would be an okay term if it could be well defined, people agreed on a definition, didn't try so hard to fit every language into it and recognized its limits and unreasonability. It would be fine if the community used a wider variety (not just of Native American langs) of languages to act as references, showing the diversity in the term and maybe counteracting some (though not all) of the underlying marks/stereotypes within the term. But it doesn't and we don't have the self-awareness nor desire in the community to fix this. So I'm stuck ranting about it on a blog. Well the next time the inevitable "how do I polylang" or "I never see polylangs (cue 15 polylangs)" post comes up, I can link this as I try to raise awareness :p
Here's the first thing I never sent and then I'll follow up with some other ideas I've had since then:
"Anyway, my point is that even now, the languages we choose to label as polysynthetic (especially taking the large amount of morphemes approach) tend to fall on minority and especially disenfranchised groups. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if there was actually an agreed on definition for polysynthesis. But there isn't, because whenever someone tries to come up with something, other people get angry because their language gets excluded (the biggest example of this being Baker and his exclusion of Inuit languages) or because a language they don't consider polysynthetic is included. So we are left with a category that means "lots of morphemes and if feels that way". Which then brings us back to the point that "feels that way", for whatever reason, closely aligns with "languages spoken by minority groups". So we have a category that (like all morphological typologies, mind you) doesn't tell us really much of anything about the languages classified in it, except that 1) they have long words with multiple morphemes; 2) are not placed with the other languages for some reason.
And that's crux of it. The category doesn't tell us anything that synthetic (here being agglutinative and fusional) doesn't already tell us. Yet people defend it so viciously and want their language to be in the category. Why?"
Well, a big part of it is what I call "fetishization of the exotic" (and I am guilty of it too). Polysynthesis is seen as something cool, so you want your language in it (especially for conlanging). It is seen as cool because it is different from IE (and especially English) therefore something you want to be. And that's where the underlying "racism" (for lack of a better term) comes in. It doesn't mean that the linguists/enthusiasts are being racist, but they are, because of the way the terms has been used, perpetuating stereotypes and signaling certain ideas (namely primativity/noble savage/north americanness) through the use of the term "polysynthesis". It is the "exotic" that really binds the different types of polysynthesis together, more so than head-marking, polypersonal agreement or noun-incorporation.
Why is this important? Well, the category "polysynthesis" hurts conlanging and reduces its diversity. How? First of all, since there is little if any actual tendencies that fit for polysynthesis, it isn't signaling features for the most part. Instead it signals that you want your lang to be North American-like, especially in a Salishanesque way. This is fine and all, but it further reduces the amount of languages people learn about and makes them think that polylangs actually have many binding features. It also means that they are less likely to learn about features not found in those languages. For example, I did an informal survey on switch reference (with a bunch of polylang enthusiats) and none of us could think of any conlang with a switch reference system (other than my own, in progress one). Why? I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the primary references for polysynthesis don't have it, even though it is very common in polylangs in other parts of the world (like New Guinea) and even in the United States! In all this reduces the diversity of conlangs (I've seen one papualang (excluding my own) and none based on Australian langs, for instance) because people have an incomplete view of what "polysynthesis" really is and don't realize it.
Fetishization of the exotic aside, polysynthesis would be an okay term if it could be well defined, people agreed on a definition, didn't try so hard to fit every language into it and recognized its limits and unreasonability. It would be fine if the community used a wider variety (not just of Native American langs) of languages to act as references, showing the diversity in the term and maybe counteracting some (though not all) of the underlying marks/stereotypes within the term. But it doesn't and we don't have the self-awareness nor desire in the community to fix this. So I'm stuck ranting about it on a blog. Well the next time the inevitable "how do I polylang" or "I never see polylangs (cue 15 polylangs)" post comes up, I can link this as I try to raise awareness :p
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Toúījāb Kīkxot
Here's a translation for the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. The first set of translators notes have to do with the translation itself, the second set more with the theory behind why I did things. Btw, check out this site
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Toúījāb Kīkxot:
Khōhim úīkmo1 vit akhxōm qal cōroj2 dumlūzō ūmpa lipha tāsah ī cāyap3 vit fnoxi4. Cānu mamaxīrosasā5 mocīph6 ī ahrōsh 7 ūmpa ziūsiwk8 olúīg-alúag zāraz dūchhawāx.
IPA:
[ˈk'oːʔɪm wiːkŋɔ ʕɪt ək'ʃoːm q'əl tsoːrɔdz dʊmluːtʃoː uːmpə lɪp'ə tɑːsəʔ iː tsɑːjəp ʕɪt ħnɔʃɪ. Tsɑːnʊ məməʃiːrɔsəsɑː mɔtsiːp' iː əʔroːs' uːmpə tʃjuːsɪɹk ɔlwiːg-əlwəg tʃɑːrətʃ duːts'əɹɑːʃ]
Translators notes
1 The word literally means "human, person, mankind", but has a connotation of "civilized people" (that is, only their civilization). Using "úīkmo" instead of "vīggo" (human, tribe, people, mankind, barbarian etc) reflects their values that they are superior and have greater rights compared to everyone else.
2 Úīkmo Kīkxot find the idea of people being born "free" strange. Instead the phrase "enter the world" is used. Means the same thing, but fits their sensibility better, since the verb born usually has reference to a mother, but there is none here.
3 Literally means "entitlement". Úīkmo Kīkxot don't have the same views as us regarding rights. People can feel that they deserve something, but those are based on merit, wealth and caste, not ideals.
4 Means the same, equal or even balanced. While this construction is perfectly acceptable, xenophobic Úīkmo Kīkxot would probably interpret this to mean that each person's rights (entitlements) are equal or in accordance with their individual dignity (honor, standing) and not that all people have the same rights and dignity.
5 The habitual/frequentive/gnomic aspect is used to emphasize that people are always given the following things. Takes a locative applicative suffix to show that the subject is the recipient, not the patient. While no agent is specified, the ditransitive is still used and people can understand from context that the following nouns are patients, not agents.
6 Literally means "mind, place of thoughts" but can mean reason too
7 Literally means "doing righteous acts" but like many verbal nouns, has a more abstract meaning of "knowing what is right" or conscience
8 Means "must" but uses the imperative prefix to soften it to "should". This shows that pragmatically the imperative prefix makes orders more polite and in the case of an imperative verb, still makes it more polite
A) The IPA represents the standard dialect as I have it so far. But I may add more assimilations/sadhi effects/liaison and the like so don't take it as the final say.
B) So I was looking at different translations of the UDHR while I was doing this (having already decided that I didn't want to use the word for birth (see the note above)) and it ends up that Sundanese seems to use a similar phrasing: "Sakumna jalma gubrag ka alam dunya...". My Sundanese is pretty shabby and my dictionary is still in Ethiopia, but gubrag ka alam dunya means "[something] to the natural world" and I'm pretty sure gubrag means "enter". So I'm not the only person to come up with this sort of way for translating it.
C) You may get the feeling that this culture is a culture of lawyers. Well, it really is. Their religion's big schism is over the interpretation of a religious holiday. Lawyering and loopholes is built into their national being. Just look at their views on slavery. And a translation of a document like this would definitely be written by lawyers. So that's why there's lots of weasel words and ambiguous phrasings that they can take advantage of. "Oh yes, we treat all civilized people in balance with their deserved honor. In fact, we are the most humane civilization around."
D) Caste is a big deal for the Úīkmo Kīkxot. Of course they would write the translation to fit that, rather than trying to change their culture.
E) In retrospect, I think that the verb mamaxīrosasā should probably be mamaxīrosaī (which in turn would be probably pronounced something like [məmʃiːrɔsiː] but I haven't figured out all the assimilation stuff yet) since I've really shifted to having the benefactive also be a recipient marker and the locative being more only for physical locations. Especially since it benefits the person getting reason. So I may eventually change this up.
F) Verbal nouns probably make up one of the most ambigious, least consistent, hardest to translate and most fun form for TbKt. I really haven't done enough with them, showing all the different paths that things can take for it.
G) I thought for a long time on how to express "should". I already had an imperative, and in normal speech probably only the imperative would be used, I think, but in something more formal like this there had to be something seperate. So it made some interesting effects on the pragmatics of commands, which is cool.
H) I always love when one of my reduplications gets used. I had so much fun thinking them up and figuring out how they'd be use. It was actually one of the big things, in my opinion, that help TbKt move away from its Indonesian and Arabic roots.
I) In retrospect, it might be best that olúig takes the instrumental suffix, which would empahsize that the manner is a (compound noun) and the subject is using that noun to do the verb. Also, I'm not sure if the adjective agreement is necessary here since it could be a compound noun.
J) Conjunctions in TbKt (the one concession I give to logic!) would make for an interesting article. But I think I want to get some profiles and work on other languages up first. But maybe not, because the patient is marked already...it's all confusing. Maybe a preposition should be added.
As for the literal translation, it would be something like "All civilized beings which enter the world are independent and they have honor and entitlements which are equal. They are given a mind and sense of good doing and should treat each other in a brotherly manner."
I should do a gloss but I'm real lazy so this is good for now.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Toúījāb Kīkxot:
Khōhim úīkmo1 vit akhxōm qal cōroj2 dumlūzō ūmpa lipha tāsah ī cāyap3 vit fnoxi4. Cānu mamaxīrosasā5 mocīph6 ī ahrōsh 7 ūmpa ziūsiwk8 olúīg-alúag zāraz dūchhawāx.
IPA:
[ˈk'oːʔɪm wiːkŋɔ ʕɪt ək'ʃoːm q'əl tsoːrɔdz dʊmluːtʃoː uːmpə lɪp'ə tɑːsəʔ iː tsɑːjəp ʕɪt ħnɔʃɪ. Tsɑːnʊ məməʃiːrɔsəsɑː mɔtsiːp' iː əʔroːs' uːmpə tʃjuːsɪɹk ɔlwiːg-əlwəg tʃɑːrətʃ duːts'əɹɑːʃ]
Translators notes
1 The word literally means "human, person, mankind", but has a connotation of "civilized people" (that is, only their civilization). Using "úīkmo" instead of "vīggo" (human, tribe, people, mankind, barbarian etc) reflects their values that they are superior and have greater rights compared to everyone else.
2 Úīkmo Kīkxot find the idea of people being born "free" strange. Instead the phrase "enter the world" is used. Means the same thing, but fits their sensibility better, since the verb born usually has reference to a mother, but there is none here.
3 Literally means "entitlement". Úīkmo Kīkxot don't have the same views as us regarding rights. People can feel that they deserve something, but those are based on merit, wealth and caste, not ideals.
4 Means the same, equal or even balanced. While this construction is perfectly acceptable, xenophobic Úīkmo Kīkxot would probably interpret this to mean that each person's rights (entitlements) are equal or in accordance with their individual dignity (honor, standing) and not that all people have the same rights and dignity.
5 The habitual/frequentive/gnomic aspect is used to emphasize that people are always given the following things. Takes a locative applicative suffix to show that the subject is the recipient, not the patient. While no agent is specified, the ditransitive is still used and people can understand from context that the following nouns are patients, not agents.
6 Literally means "mind, place of thoughts" but can mean reason too
7 Literally means "doing righteous acts" but like many verbal nouns, has a more abstract meaning of "knowing what is right" or conscience
8 Means "must" but uses the imperative prefix to soften it to "should". This shows that pragmatically the imperative prefix makes orders more polite and in the case of an imperative verb, still makes it more polite
A) The IPA represents the standard dialect as I have it so far. But I may add more assimilations/sadhi effects/liaison and the like so don't take it as the final say.
B) So I was looking at different translations of the UDHR while I was doing this (having already decided that I didn't want to use the word for birth (see the note above)) and it ends up that Sundanese seems to use a similar phrasing: "Sakumna jalma gubrag ka alam dunya...". My Sundanese is pretty shabby and my dictionary is still in Ethiopia, but gubrag ka alam dunya means "[something] to the natural world" and I'm pretty sure gubrag means "enter". So I'm not the only person to come up with this sort of way for translating it.
C) You may get the feeling that this culture is a culture of lawyers. Well, it really is. Their religion's big schism is over the interpretation of a religious holiday. Lawyering and loopholes is built into their national being. Just look at their views on slavery. And a translation of a document like this would definitely be written by lawyers. So that's why there's lots of weasel words and ambiguous phrasings that they can take advantage of. "Oh yes, we treat all civilized people in balance with their deserved honor. In fact, we are the most humane civilization around."
D) Caste is a big deal for the Úīkmo Kīkxot. Of course they would write the translation to fit that, rather than trying to change their culture.
E) In retrospect, I think that the verb mamaxīrosasā should probably be mamaxīrosaī (which in turn would be probably pronounced something like [məmʃiːrɔsiː] but I haven't figured out all the assimilation stuff yet) since I've really shifted to having the benefactive also be a recipient marker and the locative being more only for physical locations. Especially since it benefits the person getting reason. So I may eventually change this up.
F) Verbal nouns probably make up one of the most ambigious, least consistent, hardest to translate and most fun form for TbKt. I really haven't done enough with them, showing all the different paths that things can take for it.
G) I thought for a long time on how to express "should". I already had an imperative, and in normal speech probably only the imperative would be used, I think, but in something more formal like this there had to be something seperate. So it made some interesting effects on the pragmatics of commands, which is cool.
H) I always love when one of my reduplications gets used. I had so much fun thinking them up and figuring out how they'd be use. It was actually one of the big things, in my opinion, that help TbKt move away from its Indonesian and Arabic roots.
I) In retrospect, it might be best that olúig takes the instrumental suffix, which would empahsize that the manner is a (compound noun) and the subject is using that noun to do the verb. Also, I'm not sure if the adjective agreement is necessary here since it could be a compound noun.
J) Conjunctions in TbKt (the one concession I give to logic!) would make for an interesting article. But I think I want to get some profiles and work on other languages up first. But maybe not, because the patient is marked already...it's all confusing. Maybe a preposition should be added.
As for the literal translation, it would be something like "All civilized beings which enter the world are independent and they have honor and entitlements which are equal. They are given a mind and sense of good doing and should treat each other in a brotherly manner."
I should do a gloss but I'm real lazy so this is good for now.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Slavery among the People of Kikxo: A President's Day Special
I'm doing this instead of homework because I can't focus on homework right now because my face is numb. Silly dentist fixing my teeth.
I wanted to do a whole big article on the political system of the úīkmo Kīkxot, but I do have plenty of homework to do and really am not feeling up to it. So I'll talk about something more minor but still president's day related: slavery.
The úīkmo Kīkxot are, if nothing else, xenophobic. Not necessarily in the "hatred of foreigners" way so much as the "hatred of strangers" way. You can figure out the difference for yourself. And they do love their slavery. They take from whoever sells and from the people they conqueror. Their religion proscribes only one rule: No follower of Kīkxo may enslave fellow travelers. The different sects interpret this in very different ways, with an extreme few saying that forbids all slavery all the way to the sects that think that means even enslaving members of other sects is okay. But for most people, it means non-followers of Kikxot are fair game.
Most people do not own slaves but those that do use them for a variety of tasks. Agriculture, manufacturing, running a household, teaching and whatever else. Slaves can even have fairly high status, personal wealth and other things that we wouldn't associate with slaves in our culture. They are (in theory) to be cared for and protected, sometimes even like a family member. But they are not free (whatever that means) and ultimately report and execute the will of their owners.
Slavery is a highly valued and protected institution among the Úīkmo Kīkxot, which may be hard to understand for a westerner. It stems from their religious beliefs ultimately. To them, Kīkxo is the ultimate protector in the fight between Good and Evil. One who worships and submits to Kīkxo is accepting his protection. When a follower of Kīkxo enslaves someone, Kīkxo's protection extends over that slave. To the followers of Kīkxo, slavery is a means of extending Kīkxo's good will and love to the ignorant savages who refuse to accept it on their own. To the followers of Kīkxo it is inhumane to free slaves and release them from the protection Kīkxo offers them. It is the evil one who tells slaves they want to be free, that deludes people into wanting to free slaves. Now of course, in theory if a slave converts to Kīkxo, they should be freed, though many slaveowners, reasonably fearing it is simply a deception to seek freedom and betray Kīkxo and the forces of good, do not accept such conversions. At least, that's what their reasoning is.
Theologians and scribes often debate the role that slavery plays in spreading the truth to other lands ("Are our neighbors converting just to avoid slave raids? Should such deceitful traitors be enslaved to teach them a lesson?" or "Are we really only spreading the religion as an excuse to expand and take more slaves?" Things like that) they almost always agree that it is a good thing and an essential part civilized life.
Happy Presidents Day
I wanted to do a whole big article on the political system of the úīkmo Kīkxot, but I do have plenty of homework to do and really am not feeling up to it. So I'll talk about something more minor but still president's day related: slavery.
The úīkmo Kīkxot are, if nothing else, xenophobic. Not necessarily in the "hatred of foreigners" way so much as the "hatred of strangers" way. You can figure out the difference for yourself. And they do love their slavery. They take from whoever sells and from the people they conqueror. Their religion proscribes only one rule: No follower of Kīkxo may enslave fellow travelers. The different sects interpret this in very different ways, with an extreme few saying that forbids all slavery all the way to the sects that think that means even enslaving members of other sects is okay. But for most people, it means non-followers of Kikxot are fair game.
Most people do not own slaves but those that do use them for a variety of tasks. Agriculture, manufacturing, running a household, teaching and whatever else. Slaves can even have fairly high status, personal wealth and other things that we wouldn't associate with slaves in our culture. They are (in theory) to be cared for and protected, sometimes even like a family member. But they are not free (whatever that means) and ultimately report and execute the will of their owners.
Slavery is a highly valued and protected institution among the Úīkmo Kīkxot, which may be hard to understand for a westerner. It stems from their religious beliefs ultimately. To them, Kīkxo is the ultimate protector in the fight between Good and Evil. One who worships and submits to Kīkxo is accepting his protection. When a follower of Kīkxo enslaves someone, Kīkxo's protection extends over that slave. To the followers of Kīkxo, slavery is a means of extending Kīkxo's good will and love to the ignorant savages who refuse to accept it on their own. To the followers of Kīkxo it is inhumane to free slaves and release them from the protection Kīkxo offers them. It is the evil one who tells slaves they want to be free, that deludes people into wanting to free slaves. Now of course, in theory if a slave converts to Kīkxo, they should be freed, though many slaveowners, reasonably fearing it is simply a deception to seek freedom and betray Kīkxo and the forces of good, do not accept such conversions. At least, that's what their reasoning is.
Theologians and scribes often debate the role that slavery plays in spreading the truth to other lands ("Are our neighbors converting just to avoid slave raids? Should such deceitful traitors be enslaved to teach them a lesson?" or "Are we really only spreading the religion as an excuse to expand and take more slaves?" Things like that) they almost always agree that it is a good thing and an essential part civilized life.
Happy Presidents Day
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)