Kathryn Andersen wrote:
<<The difficulty with this, and indeed with trying to create any
futuristic language use (such as Kai was complaining of the lack of in
B7) is that most native English-speakers are completely unaware of (a)
the non-translatability of puns and (b) the high level of idioms we use
in our everyday speech. Idioms don't translate either.>>
Idioms can travel from language to another through normal influence. For
example, translations of English idioms are popping up in many languages
right now. Some will take root and become normalised. Eventually they
become part of that language. Still to expect exact words to sustain over
millennia is a long shot.
English-speaking peoples are now in a rather privileged position of living
in a linguistically dominant cultures that are giving out the influences
rather than digesting them. Almost self-contained, you could say. Still
even in cultures which are more dependant on translations, too much
domestication can create the blindness to cultural differences. The kind
of translation that seeks to make the text as idiomatic in the target
language as possible, may snuff out the flavour and unique subjectivity of
the source language and culture. Pretty soon you may be thinking that your
idioms and metaphors (and hence your way of thinking) are universal,
because, heck, everyone else is using them, or else they wouldn't
translate it like this, would they...
I like books that collect proverbs from around the world, even in
translated forms. It makes you realise that people don't refer to bygones
with images of water under bridges or last years snows in places where
there is no snow and few enough bridges.
<<But I think expecting B7 to be linguistically aware is asking a bit
much. If they can't get the science right, how on earth could one
expect them to get the linguistics right? A lot more people in the SF
world know science than know linguistics...>>
Yes, it's a bit too much to ask. Mind you, I agree with you that Blake's 7
is no way the worst example of linguistic homogenisation. It is mainly
following the established mores and mostly handles it pretty well. The
establishment of a well-thought out and consistent universe was obviously
not a priority, as it rarely is with television science fiction, rather
just a suggestion of one sufficed. Then there is also the fact that
television writing especially favours the kind of simple formulas that can
be adapted from genre to another with relatively few modifications (the
original Star Trek had a lot of this kind of episodes). Science fiction is
often just in the setting, costumes and props.
The one thing about the relationship of science and linguistics in science
fiction is that too often when brilliant scientific speculation is thrown
around it seems to happen in a vacuum. Somehow the idea that the everyday
is also fundamentally altered by these things never seems to enter into
it. It's almost a kind of Flintstones effect in reverse: everything is
like the 1950s, only now it's wrapped in tinfoil rather than made out of
stone. People are surrounded by technical marvels and yet they talk and
act like they had just crawled out of a grass hut. You don't have to be a
linguist to figure this things out, just have to stop and think about what
you are doing every day. But again it's hard to go beyond the patterns and
models you have in your head, that you have grown into. That's why I think
there are few really successful depictions of alien civilisations that are
truly non-human in thought and behaviour, rather than just appearance.
Perhaps it's just that I tend to have more difficulty swallowing the idea
of universal translator that can in five seconds turn any insectoid
hissing into perfect Texan drawl than the idea of FTL drive.
<<That jarred, because "parking meters" is such a late-20th-century
concept that I find it hard to believe that a culture such as
28th-century Federated Earth is going to *have* such things as parking
metres; we don't even know if private individuals are allowed to own
their own vehicles, necessarily, and if they didn't then the concept of
parking metres would be nonsensical. Of if everyone used air-cars, then
maybe the concept of "parking" isn't the same. Do you see what I mean?
That kind of thing bugged me much more than whether calling someone a
"gook" sounds silly or not.>>
I do. That's one of the things that break the illusion of realistic
fictional universe. Most evidence would suggest against private ownership
of motor vehicles, on Earth at least: free travel is clearly not on the
Federation wish list and the whole reason for the domes seems to be to
restrict and contain such a thing. Most Outer Worlds settlements seem to
follow the pattern of concentration, minimising the need for individual
persons to travel long distances. It may be different on non-Federation
worlds and I believe the military has its share of ground vehicles, but
somehow the idea of Vila observing how a Federation MP writes an assault
tank driver a ticket for forgetting to put a coin in the metre after
parking his vehicle by the headquarters doesn't really wash. Again a
question of the writer being too caught up in contemporary ideas to think
whether it went together with what we know about this fictional universe.
Kai