Really interesting. I understand where the idea about trying to make statements non-ambiguous is coming from, but I think it's naive to think it would actually work. I'm not sure I see a big difference between saying something hurtful and preceding it with the "jest" marker and saying something hurtful and following it with "just kidding" (which is a jest marker too, after all). It's not the lack of a clear marker, but the insincerity of the sentiment, that's the problem.

And the insincerity of the sentiment is definitely connected to female socialization in patriarchy - I can't express feelings directly and I feel competitive with you, so I'm going to cut you down tiny piece by tiny piece, but always maintain the veneer of social acceptability, politeness, friendliness so that I can claim innocence. Without changing those social parameters, could changing the phraseology make any real difference?

I do like the invention of words for complicated social phenomena that we all recognize. Like "refrigerator guest."

What is with the abundant accent marks and silent letters, though? Argh. If you want to invent a new language, make it easy to read and learn! It looks heavily influenced by New Agey fake-Norse and Elvish. I haven't taken the trouble to read about the structure yet, though - maybe it's explained.

this is designed to counter male-centred language's limitations on women, who are forced to respond "I know I said that, but I meant this".

Wow. So this whole effort to mark utterances as statements or requests or jokes is designed in reaction to male misunderstandings? To clear things up for people who aren't taking the trouble to listen for emotional content? That doesn't seem so liberating.

Thanks for the post. Had never heard of this and it's indeed kind of interesting to think about.

I think one factor is that she wanted to use the language in her SF books as well as trying it out in real life. So, she wanted to give it an exotic feel, which also makes it harder than it needs to be to learn.

IIRC, Tolkien was quite sneaky with Dwarfish: it's full of accents which don't mean anything in terms of pronunciation, but give it an exotic feel.

Should have mentioned I found out about this by reading In the Land of Invented Languages.

Her statement was interesting - the one you linked to with her name. That explains a lot about what she's up to and her basic assumptions.

I was going to day, TE, that list of words looks almost exactly like the list in the book, and I was just about to link to the MeFi thread. It's a good read, that book.

I think one of the problems with this is that it requires enormous amounts of a) honesty and b) self awareness. You have to really know what you're feeling when you say something, and you have to know the 'trustworthiness' of the statement, and you have to know and understand your intentions. I get what she was trying to do, and there are some interesting concepts there, but I can certainly see why it didn't catch on like some other constructed languages.

And that's before we get to my quibbles about the gender stuff. But anyway! This was a really interesting set of links! Thanks for sharing!

But maybe the language would foster that kind of awareness while other languages would foster obliviousness.

maybe the language would foster that kind of awareness while other languages would foster obliviousness.

But it still depends on the speaker's goodwill. It might make you more aware of what kind of statement you're overtly making, but if your aim is to speak dishonestly or with veiled emotion, there's no way to disallow that.

Thanks for the link to the book, TheophileEscargot. There hasn't really been a good book on constructed languages in the past -- I mainly remember Lunatic Lovers of Language which seemed mostly to be about what precise pathologies the author felt it indicated in a person when that person decided to create a language.

The Search for the Perfect Language by Umberto Eco is also really good and talks about some of the things people are discussing in this thread, particular the history of attempts at making "better" languages that are more rational, less ambiguous, more reflective of the world as it is, etc. -- really worth reading if you are interested in these things.

I don't know.... it seems like LITERALLY creating a women's language will only serve to further divide people and make everyone focus on their differences.

The whole concept of a language designed to allow women to express themselves is intrinsically dividing and, to my mind, appears to fundamentally contradict its own purpose. Of course, I'm only a man, so I guess the language is not meant to be used by me anyway, so what would I know?

Also, if you're going to invent a language that makes it easier for people to express their thoughts, wouldn't you make it simpler rather than more complicated? Yeah, I know that people are complex creatures and that there are times when there is a need for a wide range of similar-but-not-quite-the-same words that express the same basic concept, but Láadan seems to tend towards a desire to make the language pretty, rather than clear. Surely, a language that is clear and unambiguous would go a long way towards making communication easier, rather than one which is more complex? Isn't the core purpose of such an undertaking to improve communication, rather than make it more difficult?

Of course, it's quite possible that I'm missing the point altogether.

Also:
But maybe the language would foster that kind of awareness while other languages would foster obliviousness.
posted by Obscure Reference
Eponysterical!

Well, I think it makes more sense if you consider the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which is the unproven theory that language affects the way we think.

If it's true, then a language with lots of emotional nuances would help us think more subtly about emotions.

Also, if English has been historically more controlled by men, then it might be already be subtly influencing us to think in traditionally male ways.