Star Trek: The Discussion Thread

[fleinn]

Originally Posted by Steerpike

The Tamarians form of communication can be described as "Shaka when the walls fell." One can question if the writers thought this concept out. It doesn't hold logical validity as it relies on understanding metaphor to communicate but not the meaning of the words on their own. How would a Tamarian come to understand the mythology if she/he doesn't understand the meaning of words in the first place? If the words were the basis of the communication, then using metaphor would be unnecessary.

:) But what are words except metaphors for situations and contexts?

..I mean, I don't think the problem with the language was that they didn't have individual words. But that the words didn't have meaning on their own. Which, to some extent, is how most languages are, no?

[Persondude]

I love star trek! I am watching the TNG episode where the ferangi (sp?) guy wants to get revenge on picard for killin his son, good stuff lol. Data is by far my favorite character for all series.

[fleinn]

Data is all right. A bit stiff, but still.

I think Kirk and Spock together are the best characters in the Star Trek universe. Like when they manage to survive the Nomad probe: 'I'm Kirk(!) not Rorkirk thatwasyourfirsterror (extends hand from hip) - and you compounded your error by not realising your mistake! Haha! therefore, logically, you are imperfect, and needs to be destroyed!! (*bzztt* purify!) Admit it, you must purify yourself (shakes fist, Nomad starts to glow red). - Your logic is impeccable Captain.. I believe we may be in mortal danger.'

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by fleinn

:) But what are words except metaphors for situations and contexts?

..I mean, I don't think the problem with the language was that they didn't have individual words. But that the words didn't have meaning on their own. Which, to some extent, is how most languages are, no?

Instead of explaining, here is an example:

"Juliet on the balcony."

In our ordinary way of understanding this phrase, what does it mean?

If it is used as metaphor, then what might I mean by it?

Originally Posted by Persondude

I love star trek! I am watching the TNG episode where the ferangi (sp?) guy wants to get revenge on picard for killin his son, good stuff lol. Data is by far my favorite character for all series.

You are welcome to join the discussion. There are some undiscussed Star Trek The Next Generation possibilities listed earlier in the thread. If you wish, then you may start discussing any of those or you may bring in something else to discuss or you may join in the currently active discussion.

[fleinn]

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Instead of explaining, here is an example:

"Juliet on the balcony."

In our ordinary way of understanding this phrase, what does it mean?

If it is used as metaphor, then what might I mean by it?

Longing, hope, love, sorrow, romance, etc. It's not easy to know unless you would know the usage of the phrase in the langugage.

Of course - in this case, we already have other words to express it, so why bother with methaphors, no? I mean, I understand your point.

But.. any word in any language has indirect connotations. And a real language isn't learned by memorising the words, and then coughing them up again to reproduce the expected responses. It's learned by adapting the language to fit with your experience of the situation, and to reflect your thoughts.

So I put it to you that the Star Trek universe and the universal translator is illogical ;), and that the Tamarian language is, while extremely culturally dependent, fundamentally more alike any other language we have on earth at the moment, including english.

For example - if I started typing english to you in the way I write sentences in norwegian - you wouldn't understand a thing, even if some of the words are very similar. Neither would the words make any sense in the situation, unless I would be careful to avoid the worst colloquialisms, and insert elements that are less culturally dependent on purpose. Also, written and spoken language are seriously different - to the point where some speakers of some dialects choose to write slavishly normalised norwegian, since that becomes easier than trying to adapt the spoken language. Which again simply illustrates the point that concepts and situations are what the language really contains, more than words and literal descriptions.

Another good example is japanese - it's based entirely on describing a condition or an expression - and the words change meaning drastically dependent on what sort of situation you speak them in. It's also typical to find expressions that don't have an english equivalent - and if you want to express it in another language, you would need to describe a situation where a condition of some sort takes place instead. With your words replacing the concept - not with your words replicating the expression.

Korean might be another interesting example. While the alphabet and the sounds of every syllable is totally uniform, and has been so since a king some time back decided to create a written language for the han- people - the language is a complete jumble of honorifics and situational expressions that are so culturally dependent they just can't be translated directly. Meaning that while you could easily extract the sounds on a paper, and depict the langugage and the words accurately (completely accurately, in the way that when north and south korea finally is united again, people on either side will understand each other gramatically and phonetically) - the actual meaning of the words is impossible to get at without knowing how the language is used. The universal translator would break down if someone started a sentence with the equivalent of "you".

So individual words might make sense - but you're dead in the water if you can't grasp the parts of the langugage that are not direct and literal. Or more to the point - when trying to understand a language, we would to some extent make up our own ****ised version. With some crossovers, allowing us to understand someone else.

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by fleinn

Longing, hope, love, sorrow, romance, etc. It's not easy to know unless you would know the usage of the phrase in the langugage.

Of course - in this case, we already have other words to express it, so why bother with methaphors, no? I mean, I understand your point.

But.. any word in any language has indirect connotations. And a real language isn't learned by memorising the words, and then coughing them up again to reproduce the expected responses. It's learned by adapting the language to fit with your experience of the situation, and to reflect your thoughts.

So I put it to you that the Star Trek universe and the universal translator is illogical ;), and that the Tamarian language is, while extremely culturally dependent, fundamentally more alike any other language we have on earth at the moment, including english.

For example - if I started typing english to you in the way I write sentences in norwegian - you wouldn't understand a thing, even if some of the words are very similar. Neither would the words make any sense in the situation, unless I would be careful to avoid the worst colloquialisms, and insert elements that are less culturally dependent on purpose. Also, written and spoken language are seriously different - to the point where some speakers of some dialects choose to write slavishly normalised norwegian, since that becomes easier than trying to adapt the spoken language. Which again simply illustrates the point that concepts and situations are what the language really contains, more than words and literal descriptions.

Another good example is japanese - it's based entirely on describing a condition or an expression - and the words change meaning drastically dependent on what sort of situation you speak them in. It's also typical to find expressions that don't have an english equivalent - and if you want to express it in another language, you would need to describe a situation where a condition of some sort takes place instead. With your words replacing the concept - not with your words replicating the expression.

Korean might be another interesting example. While the alphabet and the sounds of every syllable is totally uniform, and has been so since a king some time back decided to create a written language for the han- people - the language is a complete jumble of honorifics and situational expressions that are so culturally dependent they just can't be translated directly. Meaning that while you could easily extract the sounds on a paper, and depict the langugage and the words accurately (completely accurately, in the way that when north and south korea finally is united again, people on either side will understand each other gramatically and phonetically) - the actual meaning of the words is impossible to get at without knowing how the language is used. The universal translator would break down if someone started a sentence with the equivalent of "you".

So individual words might make sense - but you're dead in the water if you can't grasp the parts of the langugage that are not direct and literal. Or more to the point - when trying to understand a language, we would to some extent make up our own ****ised version. With some crossovers, allowing us to understand someone else.

I could also be referring to "Juliet on the balcony" from Romeo's perspective which could indicate a goal or if one emphasizes the balcony then it would be an obstacle to overcome to reach the goal. It could also refer to her being on a balcony giving her a different perspective, "a bird's eye view."

In languages, words have definitions. In the Tamarian communication, if the words have no individual meaning, then how would one even construct the metaphor let alone define it? One would have to define a metaphor with another metaphor if that model is to hold. How does that first metaphor get constructed?

"Darmok and Jelard at Tenagra", how would a Tamarian understand what is referenced with that phrase if it encompasses a story?

The Universal Translator can be viewed as a gimmick designed to move the story along. If every episode that aliens were encountered they had to figure out how to communicate, then the story telling would not get very far.

[fleinn]

lol. Of course. Then again - it would be the most important part of space exploration. And make some alliances apparent before the first word would be said. But yeah - "three months later", and only a few people on the ship being able to say a few rudimentary phrases in the new language (unless the alien language didn't have sounds humans could pronounce) - that wouldn't be very interesting.

But on the methaphors - again, if you look at how you learn a language, you could ask the same thing: how do you learn the first word? But you don't - you learn a situation where words have some sort of meaning you can express. Then you could learn the history of the words after that.

It's not inconceivable that a language like that could develop either. For example, it's common in any language that names and places are significant. So if a proto- language was oriented through specific situations and places. And perhaps the culture was based on story- telling, like any other civilisation - it's absolutely possible. And I mean, my language certainly has untranslateable phrases that reference places and historic people. Which might vaguely make sense from the situation and the emotion - but won't make real sense unless I start to conjure up the entire story (which can't be covered or understood by just using one word - not until you hear that story).

But those phrases still mean something specific. :)

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by fleinn

lol. Of course. Then again - it would be the most important part of space exploration. And make some alliances apparent before the first word would be said. But yeah - "three months later", and only a few people on the ship being able to say a few rudimentary phrases in the new language (unless the alien language didn't have sounds humans could pronounce) - that wouldn't be very interesting.

But on the methaphors - again, if you look at how you learn a language, you could ask the same thing: how do you learn the first word? But you don't - you learn a situation where words have some sort of meaning you can express. Then you could learn the history of the words after that.

It's not inconceivable that a language like that could develop either. For example, it's common in any language that names and places are significant. So if a proto- language was oriented through specific situations and places. And perhaps the culture was based on story- telling, like any other civilisation - it's absolutely possible. And I mean, my language certainly has untranslateable phrases that reference places and historic people. Which might vaguely make sense from the situation and the emotion - but won't make real sense unless I start to conjure up the entire story (which can't be covered or understood by just using one word - not until you hear that story).

But those phrases still mean something specific. :)

In a real language, one can learn words by direct association with the subject, "bottle", "rock", "cat," etc. A "language" based on metaphor where words have no individual meaning would not have that capability.

An episode that some appreciate.



The Vengeance Factor we see Captain Picard use his diplomatic skills to resolve a conflict between "The Gatherers" and the government of Acamar represented by Sovereign Marouk. Any opinions about about anything in this episode?

[fleinn]

Originally Posted by Steerpike

In a real language, one can learn words by direct association with the subject, "bottle", "rock", "cat," etc. A "language" based on metaphor where words have no individual meaning would not have that capability.

I'm not so sure. Because.. can you really understand a word without a backstory and some associations? ..Or a methaphor?

The Vengeance Factor we see Captain Picard use his diplomatic skills to resolve a conflict between "The Gatherers" and the government of Acamar represented by Sovereign Marouk. Any opinions about about anything in this episode?

I liked the assassin. Devout, loyal, stalwart, righteous and quietly passionate.

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by fleinn

I liked the assassin. Devout, loyal, stalwart, righteous and quietly passionate.

How many of those attributes do you think she possessed on her own and which ones do you think were due to her being altered for the clan wars?

In what sense do you see Yuta as "righteous?"