Conlangery Podcast (Latest Ep: #94: Face and Politeness)

[Aurora Rossa]

You don't really understand religions, do you? Not that I care particularly, but it makes you look stupid.

I understand them perfectly well and I know from experience that God is invariably described as some form of powerful sovereign. Expressions like "the Lord" and "King of kings" exemplify this.

[Ollock]

You don't really understand religions, do you? Not that I care particularly, but it makes you look stupid.

I understand them perfectly well and I know from experience that God is invariably described as some form of powerful sovereign. Expressions like "the Lord" and "King of kings" exemplify this.

Yes, however, the use of familiar pronouns is a long standing tradition with the Christian God. My theory is that it has to do with emotional distance -- something I mentioned in the podcast. Since God knows everything about you, even "numbers the hairs on your head", and cares for each individual human very deeply, it is then presumably impossible to distance yourself from him emotionally. Therefore, using a formal pronoun would seem odd and stilted if you truly want to have a "personal relationship with God."

My basic theory. But as much as I can speculate, it doesn't matter what the actual reason is. Linguistic convention is linguistic convention.

[Torco]

You don't really understand religions, do you? Not that I care particularly, but it makes you look stupid.

I understand them perfectly well and I know from experience that God is invariably described as some form of powerful sovereign. Expressions like "the Lord" and "King of kings" exemplify this.

humm.... am I the only one who sees a problem with this string? I mean "I understand religions perfectly, christianity has this one trait only tangentially related to the subject at hand"

Dude, the whole point of christianity is *a personal relationship with jesus christ our lord and saviour*! how does using tu instead of usted, or instead of vous, not make sense? a *personal*, *close*, even *intimate* relationship with the creator. intimate? close? personal? tu?

yeah, I don't know anyone who calls god 'usted' in Spanish. Again, this applies only to christianity, and christianity isn't synonimous with religion. I'm sure other adress conventions are followed when addressing Allah or Krishna or Vishnu or Thor or Zeus or for ancient Indo-Europpeans addressing motherfucking *Dyeus Pyater.

[MisterBernie]

yeah, I don't know anyone who calls god 'usted' in Spanish. Again, this applies only to christianity, and christianity isn't synonimous with religion. I'm sure other adress conventions are followed when addressing Allah or Krishna or Vishnu or Thor or Zeus or for ancient Indo-Europpeans addressing motherfucking *Dyeus Pyater.

FWIW, iirc (jsyk, btw), Hindi at the very least (don't know about other Indo-Aryan languageS) uses familiar tu to address deities, instead of informal tum or formal aap.

[vampireshark]

You don't really understand religions, do you? Not that I care particularly, but it makes you look stupid.

I understand them perfectly well and I know from experience that God is invariably described as some form of powerful sovereign. Expressions like "the Lord" and "King of kings" exemplify this.

Yes, however, the use of familiar pronouns is a long standing tradition with the Christian God. My theory is that it has to do with emotional distance -- something I mentioned in the podcast. Since God knows everything about you, even "numbers the hairs on your head", and cares for each individual human very deeply, it is then presumably impossible to distance yourself from him emotionally. Therefore, using a formal pronoun would seem odd and stilted if you truly want to have a "personal relationship with God."

My basic theory. But as much as I can speculate, it doesn't matter what the actual reason is. Linguistic convention is linguistic convention.

Many of the Christianity varieties that I'm familiar with try to emphasize very personal relationships with God, especially in the reformed Protestant denominations (Torco hits the nail on the head). Catholicism appears to be a bit more distant (vous in French was commonly used to address God until very recently), but, especially in the Protestant churches, it's supposed to be a very personal relationship. Accordingly, it makes sense that, in German and some French, the informal pronoun is used (though normally capitalized to show reverence).

In any event, while I might like to call into the podcast, I run into the issue of time zones as well: I'm in Germany until October and probably not in the Eastern time zone until mid-December (at the latest, depending on if I can get a visa for France), and your recording/whatnot is on Monday mornings at 2 for me. It's doable for me, but very occasionally. (It'd be a lot better if it were on Saturdays for you, though...)

[Ollock]

In any event, while I might like to call into the podcast, I run into the issue of time zones as well: I'm in Germany until October and probably not in the Eastern time zone until mid-December (at the latest, depending on if I can get a visa for France), and your recording/whatnot is on Monday mornings at 2 for me. It's doable for me, but very occasionally. (It'd be a lot better if it were on Saturdays for you, though...)

That's cool. Stay tuned for updates, as we may end up moving the recording time due to Bianca's moving to England.

[Gojera]

I've been listening on my iPod, up through episode 6.

The discussion on Laadan was really interesting. It reminded me of the Guy Deutscher article Does Your Language Shape How You Think?

Since there is no evidence that any language forbids its speakers to think anything, we must look in an entirely different direction to discover how our mother tongue really does shape our experience of the world. Some 50 years ago, the renowned linguist Roman Jakobson pointed out a crucial fact about differences between languages in a pithy maxim: “Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.” This maxim offers us the key to unlocking the real force of the mother tongue: if different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about.

IIRC, grammaticalizing evidentiality in Turkish require every statement to have an marking for evidentiality. That is, if you repeat hearsay without grammatically marking it as third-party information, you're implying that you have direct knowledge of it. Which is considered a lie.

This sort of problem seems to be the issue with Laadan's attitudinal markers. Say there's an attitudinal marker that says you don't like someone. If you're talking to this person you don't like and you avoid it, it would basically be a lie; but if you DO use it, it's socially awkward.

Which seems like an unintended consequence of grammaticalizing novel information. And possibly a bigger problem with some onlanging experiments.

[finlay]

Couple of comments I thought of for formality:

- In English the way I've taught formality is that you add more words to be more formal. I think you touched on this.

- I've definitely heard 'vos' in an Argentinian film, and I've heard that the distinction between vos and tu is becoming akin to the equivalent you/thou difference in English: vos is edging tu out and eventually tu will be considered a kind of archaic pronoun used only with god.

- I was told when I went to Holland that I shouldn't apologise for things that you don't need to apologise for, like almost bumping into someone on the street, because it instantly marks you out as English.. the Dutch seem to get on fine without being overtly polite (indeed, they come across as blunt to us, although at the same time I find this a bit more genuine than the stupid posturing and polite distance that you're expected to keep in British culture), and their word for 'sorry' is 'sorry'; they must have got it as a loanword...

[Torco]

- I've definitely heard 'vos' in an Argentinian film, and I've heard that the distinction between vos and tu is becoming akin to the equivalent you/thou difference in English: vos is edging tu out and eventually tu will be considered a kind of archaic pronoun used only with god.

dead wrong. the traditional castillian vos is already archaic, as is vosotros outside the peninsula. however, in rioplatense and chilean spanish, vos/vo is nowhere near archaic.

[Ollock]

- I've definitely heard 'vos' in an Argentinian film, and I've heard that the distinction between vos and tu is becoming akin to the equivalent you/thou difference in English: vos is edging tu out and eventually tu will be considered a kind of archaic pronoun used only with god.

dead wrong. the traditional castillian vos is already archaic, as is vosotros outside the peninsula. however, in rioplatense and chilean spanish, vos/vo is nowhere near archaic.

Not what he said. Read it again.

[Torco]

nerf

[finlay]

- I've definitely heard 'vos' in an Argentinian film, and I've heard that the distinction between vos and tu is becoming akin to the equivalent you/thou difference in English: vos is edging tu out and eventually tu will be considered a kind of archaic pronoun used only with god.

dead wrong. the traditional castillian vos is already archaic, as is vosotros outside the peninsula. however, in rioplatense and chilean spanish, vos/vo is nowhere near archaic.

lemme correct that
"the distinction between vos and tu in Argentinian Spanish"

[Ollock]

- I've definitely heard 'vos' in an Argentinian film, and I've heard that the distinction between vos and tu is becoming akin to the equivalent you/thou difference in English: vos is edging tu out and eventually tu will be considered a kind of archaic pronoun used only with god.

dead wrong. the traditional castillian vos is already archaic, as is vosotros outside the peninsula. however, in rioplatense and chilean spanish, vos/vo is nowhere near archaic.

lemme correct that
"the distinction between vos and tu in Argentinian Spanish"

What, exactly are you correcting? Rioplatense refers to what once was the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, which includes Argentina and Uruguay. Your older post made it clear enough you were talking about Argentina.

[finlay]

He didn't get it though. sarcasm dear boy

[spats]

Just want to say that I love this podcast, and the hosts are great. The content is amazing. Please keep up the good work.

Also, kudos on improving your sound quality drastically since the first episode. Levels and noise are usually deal-breakers for me, but there was just so much potential that I had to keep listening.

I was not disappointed.

[Ossicone]

Thanks! You can thank William for the improvement of sound quality.
Though I'm sure George has gotten better at editing too.
I'm just there for the sex appeal.

[Jipí]

Token female, eh?

[Bristel]

Thanks! You can thank William for the improvement of sound quality.
Though I'm sure George has gotten better at editing too.
I'm just there for the sex appeal.

You're considered the Princess Toadstool in your 3 man team on Super Mario RPG by your fanzine.

I'm trying to imagine which of the others Olly and your other host are...

(Mario and Mallow/Geno/Boswer? Or is there no Mario...?)

[Ossicone]

I don't know! It depends on who has kidnapped me and who is going to save me!
Help! They're forcing me to talk about linguistics for the entertainment of others!

[Torco]

I don't know! It depends on who has kidnapped me and who is going to save me!

I could do that... does it involve doing shrooms?

[Ossicone]

You will be rewarded with shrooms when I get back home safely!

[Bristel]

Well, Bowser kidnapped you this time, but all hell broke loose when a gigantic sword crashed into his castle, knocking Mario, Toadstool and Bowser out in different directions.

[Torco]

You will be rewarded with shrooms when I get back home safely!

sorry, honey, shrooms up front

[Ossicone]

I guess everyone will still have to put up with me on the podcast...

[Ollock]

Just want to say that I love this podcast, and the hosts are great. The content is amazing. Please keep up the good work.

Also, kudos on improving your sound quality drastically since the first episode. Levels and noise are usually deal-breakers for me, but there was just so much potential that I had to keep listening.

I was not disappointed.

Thanks! You can thank William for the improvement of sound quality.
Though I'm sure George has gotten better at editing too.
I'm just there for the sex appeal.

My editing has improved minorly -- mainly in the fact that I don't do as much as I used to (early on I was taking out any pause, now I concentrate on the awkwardly long was so that it keeps a more natural flow). We are all thanking Will for getting Bianca that headset. They say the hardest part about starting a podcast is finding something to talk about, but I really was sweating the sound quality quite a bit, considering it's one of the things that can turn me off to a podcast as well.