Posted by Martin G. on July 13, 1999 at 14:55:41:
In Reply to: Re: The Languages of Pao posted by Nick on July 13, 1999 at 14:29:20:
Nick wrote: "You are certainly a very imporant man, I can see that. You will get the respect that is you're due."
For Nick:
Nick, this is WONDERFUL! You've even discovered terseness! Like, wow man! Just a pity your grammar and spelling's still off - still, can't demand everything.
For Terry, and everyone else:
There are some very interesting studies of how grammatical constructions influence thought patterns (just two examples: one North American language demands that when you say something, you must specify if it's a quote or your own experience - and that in the grammar; another example, a Central American language, in which the directional system [north, south, down, up etc.] is very different, and where speakers have enormous difficulty in grasping left and right as used in Indo-European languages).
Vance, in Pao, was embarrassing, since he concentrated only on vocab, which doesn't mean much -
if you don't have a word for something in your language, it doesn't mean that you can't think about the something, and invent a word for it [and to be fair, Vance did raise that point] -
and because Vance in Pao was like Tim Powers at his worst; those mechanised sky-horses! etc.! ugh ugh ugh!
Still, I very much like Pao, and it's a classic in its own small way.