Re: Speculative linguistics(*)
- From: djheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx (Dorothy J Heydt)
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:05:23 GMT
In article <1hyzqd4.1x3hjjr1xyx0s4N%zeborah@xxxxxxxxx>,
Zeborah <zeborah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I could have (and have had) a language with plain everyday linguistic
features which readers complain about (I'm not sure whether it's that
they think it's impossible or that they think it calls too much
attention to itself for a throwaway); conversely I see in published book
(but would prefer not to have myself!) languages with stuff that
couldn't possibly occur in nature but which apparently writers, readers
and editors think is perfectly reasonable in sf.
Same thing happens with biology. There are still a fair few SF
writers out there who are fairly well into physics and astronomy,
but don't know diddley about biology and DON'T KNOW THEY DON'T
KNOW. The two most egregious examples I can think of, at six in
the morning, are Niven/Pournelle's _Mote in God's Eye_ and
Spinrad's _Bug Jack Barron._ In each case the writer[s] wanted
to put a species/an individual into the most untenable position
they could possibly think of, and invented a biological situation
that put them in an untenable position all right, but JUST
WOULDN'T WORK. Details if anyone is interested, but I'm sure
I've ranted this rant before.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Speculative linguistics(*)
- From: Zeborah
- Speculative linguistics(*)
- Prev by Date: Re: RASFC Pins
- Next by Date: Re: Speculative linguistics(*)
- Previous by thread: Re: Speculative linguistics(*)
- Next by thread: Re: Speculative linguistics(*)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
