Saturday, 16 May 2026

Languages

As we have seen, other languages, whether ancient, alien or artificial, play some role in the kinds of fiction discussed on this blog.

See:





Anglic (scroll down)

Fictional Lewis does not just quote fictitious Natvilcius. He first quotes the latter's Latin, then translates it for us. Later, another of Lewis' characters, Wither, addresses the man whom he thinks is the revived Merlin in Latin:

"'Magister Merline,...Sapientissime Britonum, secreti secretorum possessor...'"
-CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength IN Lewis, The Cosmic Trilogy (London, 1990), pp. 349-753 AT CHAPTER 12, 6, p. 626.

My Point? I wish that:

I had been taught French, Latin and (in our case, in the Republic of Ireland) Irish properly, to read and to speak them;

I had been helped to understand that this was worth doing.

Instead, we were force fed something that we neither understood nor wanted at the time. But our expected social role did not require us to speak or read anything other than English.

25 comments:

S.M. Stirling said...

Latin and French, yeah. Irish Gaelic? Spoken by no more than 40K people? What's the point? Apart from bilingual signs nobody reads.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

But I was in contact with fluent speakers, including language enthusiasts. It would have been good to converse with them in their language, not just in English - especially since I was, notionally, being given the opportunity to do that. Two Irish speakers could switch to their language if they didn't want me to understand what they were saying.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Paul!

I did a quick google on the actual use of Gaelic, and the conclusion I reached made me agree with Stirling. The actual everyday use of Gaelic is steadily declining. Gaelic is simply not satisfactory or practical for daily use.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

All languages are of roughly equal semantic efficiency. Therefore it really doesn't matter what language you speak, except for its usefulness -- which is a function of how many people speak it. Except for studying literatures, of course.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

But I would like to have learned to speak Irish for the reasons I said.

Jim Baerg said...

Note: For a while the "Newer Post" link has been just going back to the post it is in.
The earliest post with this error is:
https://poulandersonappreciation.blogspot.com/2026/05/more-mixed-mythologies-in-works-by.html

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!

Mr. Stirling: I might quibble a bit because the written forms of some languages, like Chinese, make them difficult to learn. I read that basic literacy in Chinese requires learning 10,000 ideographic characters. Our Roman alphabet only has 26!

In your THE WINDS OF FATE the leader of the Chinese time travelers modernizing the Han Empire talked about introducing an alphabetic writing system, to replace those awkward ideographs.

That could be 25 if the sound represented by "qu" was replaced by "kw," meaning words like "quack" or "queen" were spelt "kwack" and "kween." Then we could jettison the letter "Q."

Yes, the usefulness of any language depends on how many use and speak it.

Paul: I strongly suspect there are more passionate fans of Tolkien's works taking an intense interest in Elvish Sindarin than those who really care about Gaelic.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

I don't want lots of people to care about Irish!

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Jim,

Thank you. I don't know what to do about that - or how serious it is?

Paul.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Paul!

Good, there's no point keeping alive dying languages. I would leave them to the philologists and other scholars.

Ad astra! Sean

Jim Baerg said...

Paul: "I don't know what to do about that - or how serious it is?"

If this month ends up with more than 100 posts, it will make it harder to reach some posts. The "Older Post" link still works, but if that fails too, then some posts would be unreachable.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Jim,

Have you any idea what to do about it?

Maybe I should just put less than 100 posts on each month? (I am already posting a lot less nowadays.)

Paul.

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: yes, the Chinese have kept their Bronze Age script. Serious impediment to literacy.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Exactly, it takes so much time/effort gaining basic literacy in Chinese using those ideographs. But their use seems to be so deeply entrenched that it might need a ruthless tyrant, another Chin Shihhuang-ti, to break it.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: Liu has the advantage that literacy is rare in Han times -- only a small minority had it, a much smaller percentage than in the Roman empire. He can substitute a modified Pinyin set of letters, and the "classically educated" will ignore it until too late.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

The simplicity of the Roman alphabet was a huge reason why literacy was so much more common in the Roman Empire than it was in Han China.

I had not known there are apparently serious suggestions for replacing Chinese ideographs with a kind of Pinyin alphabet. Something that would be much quicker/easier to learn.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: there aren't serious suggestions to replace the ideographic alphabet -- they've put too much effort into making literacy common. Liu does that on his own.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Got it, I misunderstood you. I can see, after thousands of years, plus the effort made making literacy common using those awkward ideographs, it's just too hard to switch to using an alphabetic script.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Note that the 2nd century was the end-phase of Old Chinese... which did not have tones. They had consonant-clusters at the end of words, which developed into tones. Old Chinese was a really weird language -- it sounded abrupt and harsh.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I remember the Chinese time travelers in your Antonine books talking or thinking about that linguistic history.

I've seen mention of modern Chinese sounding "sing-songy" to Western ears.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: Yes, it's changed much more than the Romance languages have from Latin, although the sound changes between Latin and Romance are fairly extreme. Latin was also a 'harsh' language, nothing like as mellifluous as Italian. "C" was pronounced as a hard "K", for example. The Germans borrowed "Kaiser" from "Caesar", but their pronunciation of it is much closer to Latin.

That often happens with loan-words -- for example, Finnish borrowed their word for "king/chief" from Proto-Germanic, but they still pronounce it as "kuningas", which is very close to Proto-Germanic "kuningaz".

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Ha! So, I would have been mistaken enunciating "Caesar" in the Rome of Marcus Aurelius as "Ceesar," the correct form being more like "Keesar."

Tolkien would have read your philological comments with keen interest!

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: I find linguistic evolution fascinating. Though it's probably slowed down rather considerably after recorded sound became common. Slang still develops and passes quickly, but the basic pronunciation has been more stable for the last century. Increasingly so.

S.M. Stirling said...

If you listen to -early- recorded voices, there are more regional accents (in the US, at least) and some very strange social-class ones. Theodore Roosevelt sounded -strange-.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I can see how technology can lead to a standardizing of languages.

Regional accents still exist in the US, including me! Some 30 years ago a shopkeeper in London could not only tell I am American, but also that I'm from Massachusetts.

I've been amused by your descriptions of how TR naturally spoke, like a well-educated man of the upper-class northeastern US.

Ad astra! Sean