(00:00) Intro music (00:05) Jessie: Hey, welcome to LangTime Chat. This is episode... Three? Four! That's right, because three felt like it didn't really happen because we got so sidetracked that I didn't address a single thing on my list. And so I feel like this is Three: Part II, except- except- Here's the thing. You know how I have that whole sheet of questions I was going to do last time? (00:34) David: Yeah. (00:35) Jessie: Well I got inspiration for something else. And so we're doing something else. We'll get back to those questions at some point. So "Inspiration" will come back it at some point. But in the meantime, my own inspiration has taken us further astray. OK. So I'm going to start with story hour, and then we're going to connect it to all sorts of things, and eventually to conlangs. So it's gonna be good. It's gonna be good. (01:05) David: I've got, I've got full screen Jessie. I'm ready. (01:09) Jessie: That's all you need in life. Oh, first before I even go one step further, Patrons, if you have not watched that YouTube video that David posted of our first work stream--oh, you just took a picture for Instagram, I believe--but if you haven't yet watched that video you really should. You don't really see us at all in it--and not "you should" just because like you have to, but it's actually quite interesting. I listened to the whole doggone thing even though I was half the participant and I was like, "This is really- this is really great." I'm glad David had this idea to record it because I never would have thought to record our conversation as we worked through it. And it turns out that I have forgotten a lot of some of those kind of background nitty gritty things just because, you know, time has moved on. (02:00) David: Yeah, I'm, I'm really sad that we lost the earlier one. That one was a lot of fun. (02:07) Jessie: I am sad, too, especially because then we would have had two back-to-back to work on a lot of translation and that- that would have been cool. (02:15) David: Yeah, and it's like, you know, we had the video, and the video was on my YouTube channel for a while. I mean, I deleted it because I was like, "What's the point of having this entire video where we're all talking?" And the point is we're talking and no sound was recorded. I was like, imagining a far future, like 1000 years from now, where they have the technology where just by looking at an image, they can automatically recreate, you know, the voices in the background. (02:46) Jessie: Now that would be perfect. (02:48) David: You know, but if they didn't have the video. It's like their technology was advanced enough that they can do it if they had the video, but without... I mean, forget it. It's lost, lost to the ages. (02:59) Jessie: So, yeah. That is unfortunate. Also, what was interesting in terms of like a memory thing, I thought the one that we lost was actually recorded before I went to Philadelphia, and the one that worked was when I was in Philadelphia, but I actually had it backwards. So the one that actually worked, I was back in Texas. And so in my mind, I was going to be listening to us working while I was out of state. But, no, I was home. Anyway. (03:26) David: You could, you could tell just by the quality of your voice. (03:29) Jessie: Definitely! Actually, we had a conversation about it in the work stream. (03:34) David: We did? (03:35) Jessie: Yes. So David has not watched it. (03:41) David: I haven't rewatched it. Actually, I guess I haven't watched it either. I just- I- I lived it. And then I didn't watch it. No, I didn't watch it. (03:51) Jessie: It's good. It's good stuff. Okay. That's besides the point. I'm actually going to be writing a post for our Patreon page based on having watched that- that stream, but I'll get there eventually. In the meantime, we're gonna record this podcast. (04:08) David: Yes, this one. (04:09) Jessie: Okay, so when I was in grad school and even before that, I worked a lot with kids because you know babysitting, nannying. Good way to earn money. (04:20) David: Wow. I did not know about (04:22) Jessie: Oh yeah, I did that all. Work at child care--did it all. So anyway, I was a weekend nanny for this little girl who was about three or four years old at the time, and by "weekend nanny," it was really this- her mom was a stay-at-home mom and needed a break and needed time to be able to just like... think. Yeah, and so I would come in on the weekends and hang out with her so that way she and her husband could have some time alone or that she could go get errands done without having to worry, and so that's what I mean by a "weekend nanny." Anyway, there was one day I went over to their house, and she was very, very concerned that I was going to hurt myself. And she kept saying--the little girl--she kept telling me to be careful not to step in the door. And I was confused because, you know, kids say all sorts of crazy things. And I'm like, maybe she had recently gotten her foot slammed in a door or something. So I just took it. And it wasn't until probably about an hour or two later, and as we were playing that she then pointed and said "The door, the door!" And I looked down and what she was calling the door was a vent in the floor because the cover had been taken off for- it had to be fixed or something was wrong. So she was calling this rectangular hole in the floor a door because what else are you gonna call it if you don't have a word for it? Right. (05:49) David: Right. (05:50) Jessie: Okay. So I was thinking about that. And then that led me to thinking about children's capacity, this amazing capacity for them to make generalizations because they hear words--you point to one table, and they understand it's not just that table that gets called a table it's anything that kind of looks like it. And that's just amazing. But then that leads to some amazing overgeneralizing, so great kids errors. So this is step one in the process is thinking about how children use language. And one of my favorite examples from when Will was a kid was that he used he used to call the cars with the, you know, that magnetic- like a Pizza Hut delivery thing that goes on the top. It's like a triangular-- and they stick it on so you know that they're the delivery person. He used to call those cars with hats. And I mean, how perfect is that, right? I love it. And so putting you on the spot. I know Meridian, especially right now doing so much with language- do you have a good example of something she has done recently, or did when she was younger, of that sort of overgeneralizing that is just the most adorable thing in the world. (07:01) David: Oh, plenty. But I will say with that specific example, it actually reminded me of Community first where somebody challenges Britta and says, "Britta, do you know what a metaphor is?" She says, "I know what a metaphor is. It's like a thought with another thought's hat on it." (07:17) Jessie: I don't remember that even after watching all the Community episodes. I don't remember that line. But it's so Britta and that is perfect. I love it. (07:28) David: So, and, and to keep on the subject of hats. It's- I mean, at least half of this is is mostly the same thing, but it's not about a noun. It's about an adjective. We have these things. And if you're not familiar with, with these types of things, I mean, you could look it up. But for anybody that has hardwood floors or laminate floors, non-carpeted surfaces that they have furniture on, there are these little pads that you can put under the legs of chairs or sofas to help them move more easily on flat surfaces without damaging those surfaces. There are a couple of different types--there are types that stick but there are also types that kind of fit loosely over- over the the bottom of the leg with a little bit of elastic. And we have those, and they're furry on the bottom. They're furry so that, you know, they can glide and not damage the floor. Well, apparently, Meridian caught sight of one of these because we were moving furniture and one of them must have popped off. And she thought, "This is a hat." Yeah, and so she took this- she picked up this "hat," which looks almost exactly like a French beret. (08:53) Jessie: Oh, my gosh. (08:54) David: She put it on, and it's like- and Erin was laughing. So I go over to see what it was, and Meridian says, "No one can stop me in this hat." So that was just amazing. But then after that, she went on to refer to this hat as her "permanent hat." (09:19) Jessie: Her permanent hat. (09:20) David: Yes, "this is my permanent hat." (09:23) Jessie: Nice. (09:24) David: And so the- the- the the belief there, of course, was not with hat, but was with "permanent." I'm still not 100% sure I understand what she means by "permanent," but I know she doesn't mean what it really means. I know that. Like, I don't know if she means fancy or typical or favorite. I mean, those are options, but somehow she heard the word "permanent" and thought, "That's the word that I'm supposed to use with this hat that I love," and so she still refers to it as her "permanent hat." (10:03) Jessie: That is amazing. Oh, my gosh. I love it. And that actually- it's so sad that I can't remember it. I should have really written these things down when they happened because, of course, later on you never really remember everything. There was one day when Will had used a big word. And I remember being so impressed because he was so young and to hear it pop out of this little kid's mouth, and we were having a conversation, and all of a sudden he used it in another sentence. And I realized that it wasn't quite right. And so I asked, "Will, do you even know what this means?" And he says, "No, but I have a feeling about it." That's perfect. (10:45) David: That's good. (10:47) Jessie: I remember that. But I can't remember the word, and that's going to bug me. At some point I'll remember, I'm sure, what the word was. (10:53) David: It'll come back right as we say goodbye. I will- I do want to mention, though this is not directly related to, you know, metaphorical extension, but it is to Meridian's speech. I just want a record of this. So she's, what are we at? May? She's almost four and a half and still- first of all, still says "amn't." "No, I amn't." (11:16) Jessie: Nice. (11:17) David: So she still says that and she still has this lingering preference for noun-adjective word order. (11:26) Jessie: Really? (11:28) David: Yeah, it came out of nowhere, and she- I noticed she started using it when she was very, very little, like, maybe not even two yet, just beginning to speak. And she would refer to the "car black" and she would just say things like that. But she still does it. She absolutely still does it. Not everywhere but with certain things. She has a really hard time with "forehead." [ROBOT GARBLING] Uh-oh, Jessie is paused for minute. Did you did you get that? (12:04) Jessie: I did not. I heard that she has a problem with forehead. (12:09) David: Yes. Okay, so we'll- we'll just start again. So yes, she has a real problem with forehead. She insists on referring to it as your "head fore." (12:19) Jessie: That is- wait- like I don't even know how to process that in terms of trying to figure out the connections. That is so great (12:27) David: Because like we don't we don't even really think of that as, you know, an adjective-noun compound anymore. It's just a word. (12:33) Jessie: Right. (12:34) David: But for her, she decided, no, this is an adjective-noun compound, and so it should be "head fore." And it's like, even if I respond afterwards and say, you know, forehead, she'll say forehead. But she'll go back to "head fore" later on. It's her- it's her go-to. It's her natural. And there was another one that she did recently that really caught me by surprise, because I hadn't heard her use that before but it was still that noun-adjective word order preference, which could not have been inspired by anything. I mean, the notion that the, the, the Spanish from my family influenced her is absurd. I mean, if you knew how little Spanish this child understood and used, I mean, no. That influence is just not realistic. I think it just came from her innate preference believing that that was probably a good way to- to refer to things like that. I don't know why. And she still does it. Yeah. (13:37) Jessie: That is so cool, though. And really, you need to be making sure you write these things down. (13:43) David: At least I have made a record of it here. (13:47) Jessie: Much better than I did with whatever word was used in an interesting way. Okay. So then going back to my vent story, because that made me (13:58) David: Speaking of your vent story, I just saw Parasite yesterday. Have you seen this movie? (14:02) Jessie: No. (14:03) David: Oh, okay, well then you're not going to get this, but it was like you were talking about being a weekend nanny, and then a child saying something cryptic and then opening a vent. And it was like, "Oh my god, did you die?" But- But you're still here. So, (14:19) Jessie: No. (14:20) David: That was- that's- it's not- it's not a huge spoiler, so still see Parasite. I was blown away. Anyway, sorry. (14:28) Jessie: I don't like horror movies and- (14:30) David: It's not a horror movie. (14:31) Jessie: Are you sure? (14:33) David: Yeah, I'm 100% sure. I don't- I don't do horror movies, either. By the way, have we talked about my main objection to like "horror horror" movies, like traditional horror genre movies? (14:43) Jessie: I don't think so. (14:45) David: Oh, I- it's- it goes far beyond like me finding things scary, which I do and always have. But if you look at a lot of horror movies--traditional horror genre movies--all of the tension is built around punishing, in particular, women for deviant sexual behavior. Like the entire plot revolves around that. It's like, who are the people that are always getting hurt? It- or it's these young women who are- who are doing deviant sexual things like, for example, making out with somebody that's not their husband yet. You know. (15:23) Jessie: Yet. (15:25) David: Yeah, no, it's like, you know, teenagers going off to fool around and they're always the victims. And disproportionately, it's women as opposed to like men being punished for these types of things. And it just feels like an outgrowth of the bizarre morality that came out of the Victorian era of, you know, this is, this is now the way we need to keep, you know, our- our women in place to make sure that they don't do things we don't think they ought. Anyway, so yeah. (15:59) Jessie: Interesting. (16:00) David: There's probably a thesis somewhere that somebody else has done anyway. Sorry. Go on. Vent! (16:04) Jessie: I am sure. Okay, so good. Getting back to vents. This is why we can't get anything done. Going back. Okay, so when I was growing up and when we went out to play in the snow, which I know you did all the time it as a child in California, we go play in the snow, and then you come back in and, you know, your gloves, you know, your gloves would be still covered in snow, because the snow doesn't come off. So like you'd hold them up and they look like snowy hands. (16:35) David: Sure, that- My experience jives with that. (16:38) Jessie: You looks so confused. But I promise you, when you play in snow and then hold up your hand the snow just sticks to them. So like your coat- your gloves are just covered in snow. (16:49) David: Like how much? (16:52) Jessie: Like if you've been really playing and snow and making snowmen and stuff like from back, you just, it would just be covered in snow. All of it. (17:00) David: Can't you just like go <>? (17:02) Jessie: It gets packed on because as it starts kind of freezing to your- because it- like water freezes in cold air. Yeah. So anyway, so, you can imagine snow gloves. We would come in the house and our mom would always tell us to put our gloves on the vent because, you know, that would then- the heat would get them all- all de-snowed. But then that made me think like anytime you say vents in a house, really what you're thinking about is like the cover or the grate of vent- like I'm not thinking about the air duct system. She wasn't telling us to put it on the air duct. It was really the the cover that we were putting it on, and that's what led to this beautiful thought: There is this balance or tension, even, in language between efficiency and specificity because on the one hand, you want to be efficient and not have to have words for every single little thing because that would be horribly inefficient. But on the other hand, you want to make sure that you can be specific enough that like the other people actually understand what you're trying to say. Otherwise, what's the point? So on the one hand, saying "vent" to mean multiple things is efficient because it's- you get the point. But on the other hand, if you need to be more specific, like if someone tells you to crawl in a vent or to remove a vent- really what they may be saying is, you know, "remove the cover or the grate," like you can be more specific. You can add modifiers. Okay, so that's- (18:37) David: Yeah. (18:38) Jessie: That's what got me thinking. It was a long, long connection, but it looks like you have something to add to that. (18:46) David: Or you- or do you have another shoe that's going to drop? (18:50) Jessie: Well, I'm- I'm getting ready to connect to conlanging. And so if you, like, want to talk about that efficiency/specificity thing and natural languages, do it now. (18:59) David: Yeah, okay, here's- here's what happened with me as I was thinking about this as you were explaining this. So, I mean, the picture is painted very clearly in my mind. There's a vent on the ground, right. You know, that's the place where hot air comes out. And so you can put the gloves. But, okay, the vent, you know, as we understand it, I think most people would accept that the vent--why you can use it to refer to the whole thing--it also refers to the duct, specifically, and that the thing on top of it, we generally call a grate. I guess you could call it a vent cover, but I think grate probably makes more sense given <> how it goes. But it occurs to me that go put your gloves on a vent while perhaps less accurate makes way more sense than saying go put your gloves on the grate. Like even if there was only one relevant to you like in the house, I would still say, "Grate? Which grate?" Whereas, like I had- I would have no problems accepting "the vent." You know, it's like you just said a grate, like why? Like what grate? Any grate? Like because "grate" I guess isn't relevant enough for the task at hand--melting the snow. Even though "vent" is less specific if you wanted to say, grate, and be sure that people, you know, accepted where- or understood exactly what you were saying, without having this cognitive dissonance, you'd have to say like, "Put them on the grate of the vent" or like- But if you did that, I think everybody would say, "Okay, why didn't you say just put it on the vent? Like why the grate specifically?" I mean- it's specific, right? (20:47) Jessie: Because- because it's not efficient. It's more efficient to just use the word, but then I could imagine situations where you're trying to be more specific and you need to specify, for instance, the fact that maybe the grate had to be removed to get access to the vent, and it will be odd to say I removed the vent to get access to the vent. Like that would be odd. (21:11) David: Yeah, of course. Right. But in this case, I was just thought like- because what you really want to do is- where you want to lay your gloves on top of that grate but just using "grate," it just feel so unacceptable. (21:26) Jessie: Oh, yeah. (21:28) David: That's so weird. And- and- and of course it's even weirder that I have this immediate reaction, and I think that you have pretty much the same reaction, despite the fact that I don't have experience with snow and snow gloves the way you do. And I've never seen this house, and I've also, as I recall, never been in a house where the vents were on the floor even though- (21:51) Jessie: You have to have a basement for that. (21:54) David: Oh, I've never been in- (21:55) Jessie: The heater's in the basement. (21:57) David: Oh wow, I've never lived in a house with a basement. I'll say that. And I've certainly have seen vents in the floor. I just remarked, it's like, "Oh, that's a funny thing," kind of like, I don't know, if you were to come into a house and see, like, you know, one of those, you know, lamps that you go <> with coming out of the wall. It would be like, "Ah, that's a weird way to do that." (22:22) Jessie: But you accept it and move on with life. (22:25) David: Yeah, can't- can't break down and cry every time you see something that's that bizarre. (22:34) Jessie: So having grown up in a house with a basement in a place where we get snow, we had in the basement- the vents were in the ceiling, but on the upstairs the vents were on the floor because it's one duct system, right, and it blows out whichever way it needs to go, so. (22:51) David: Also a really efficient. Yes. Okay. (22:55) Jessie: Okay. Are you ready? (22:57) David: Yeah, I'm ready. I'm ready. (22:58) Jessie: For the big connection. So we're going to start on one half of this, being the horribly inefficient side because- and this is something I know that we have spoken about before because I remember you actually spoke to my students about it last time you came to SFA and (23:18) David: Am I gonna remember this? (23:20) Jessie: No, you don't know have to- (23:22) David: We'll see, we'll see. (23:23) Jessie: Anyway. Okay, conlangers can often go overboard with trying to create words for everything to- especially to fill what we perceive as lexical gaps in English for, like, "Oh, we don't have a word for that specific feeling you get when you open the blinds first thing in the morning." But there are a lot of words that conlangers sort of delight in and there's no- hey, I'm not saying don't delight in those words because they are fantastic when they are done well and when it matches your world and what your people would find important. And I also think everybody delights in finding out that another language has a word for something we don't have a word for and we're like, "That's awesome." (24:15) David: Yeah. (24:16) Jessie: Can you think of anything off the top of your head that you're like just delighted by? (24:23) David: Well, I'll give you a weird one. I was reading The Little Prince. It was- you know, I read it in English- it was originally in French, but I read it translated into Spanish for some reason. And I came across, across a word that I'd never heard of. And I couldn't find in any dictionary. This word was "bolon" or I think it was- it was "bulon" and not "bolon." No, I think it was "bulon." And I was like, "What the heck is this word?" And I went and cross-referenced, and I found out that word was the word for the pin that goes in the middle of a propeller on a propeller plane. Now, if we have a specific word for this, probably your husband knows it, but probably most English speakers do not. (25:10) Jessie: Unfortunately, I think he left. I'll have to ask after this, though, to find out if there's a word. (25:17) David: I mean, my guess would be like a rotor pin or a propeller pin, but it was like in Spanish. And again, even though this was the Spanish translation, I mean, this is still a book intended for children. They felt fairly comfortable just throwing this word in there was like, "Ah, they'll get it." Like it wasn't like, you know, "bulon de propeller" or whatever the word for "propeller" is in Spanish. I have no idea. It was just, "bulon." Just that by itself with no other prepositional phrases or further explanation that was it. It was like, wow. (25:50) Jessie: That's amazing. (25:52) David: Yeah. And- and, of course, the corresponding thing in English was an explanation, as one would expect, not a single word, you know. (26:01) Jessie: Because yeah, there may not even be a single word. We'll have to verify. Yeah. And that is actually, I think, one of the harder things about conlanging is to know when to stop creating new words, especially if your native language like English has a word for it, so "my language needs a word for it." It's being able to hold back and use the same word for multiple things where that metaphorical extension would make more sense because it would be more efficient to reuse those words. And I remember in my class I think your precise example was the fact that we get along just fine in English without a specific word for that thing that you put in between your order on the conveyor belt like at a grocery store. And you want to separate your groceries from the person in front of you. And so you put that thing and like you can call it a divider. You can call it a lot of things, but I don't think there's a specific word. (27:00) David: Yeah. And the- and the weird thing is we know that there has to be a specific word for it now because one thing that's different about grocery stores today and say, when we were younger, is that these things have advertisements on them now. (27:18) Jessie: Yes. (27:19) David: And so obviously if they have advertisements, you have to way- You have to have a way to advertise to advertisers. "Hey, put your advertisements on our blank." So they have a word for it. We just don't happen to know what it is. And it doesn't seem to bother a lot of people. We know how to interact with it. We know what they're for. We all have that experience of being in line behind somebody where they have clear access to one of these stupid things and they're not putting in front of your- their groceries and it's like, "Well, do I lean over and grab this thing?" (27:53) Jessie: Yes! (27:55) David: "Is that rude?" Yeah, we all- (27:58) Jessie: Not, not anymore because of COVID. But prior to COVID, yes, I would reach over and look at them while I did it. (28:07) David: I should mention, I haven't been to a store since- since- since COVID, so I don't know what it's like. The only business that I went to was, again, the self-serve kiosk at the post office late at night when everybody was already asleep to get the extra postage posted to send you that Kopiko. Oh. (28:30) Jessie: Somebody enjoyed it along the way. They better have enjoyed it. If they didn't enjoy it and like spit it out- that- oh. In my head, they must have enjoyed it. So- (28:42) David: Too dark to think of anything else. (28:46) Jessie: Um, I will say, so I go every- every Thursday morning. I go to Walmart because we don't have enough space to stock up for more than a week at a time, like I don't know where we'd- Already, you guys have seen in the live stream that, like, we have groceries in my office because I'm like, "Where else do you put them when you run out of cupboard space?" So- (29:04) David: Outdoor fridge? High recommend. (29:08) Jessie: That's- we keep talking that we need to get one to be able to do that. But yeah, so every- every Thursday I go to Walmart as soon as it opens, because now they have the- even the Super Walmarts are closed overnight to give them time to clean and restock. And so I go as soon as it opens and I always- and I've actually done this for probably almost two years now. I always go to the self-checkout because they have the bigger stations now meant for people like me who show up with a whole cart and want to do the self-checkout. And I've done that for a long time before COVID anyway, but it is definitely- they have so many more of those stations now since then that a lot of people don't even go through the checker places. (29:51) David: Yeah. (29:53) Jessie: So that's what it's like in Texas. (29:55) David: They should- they should give you little dividers that you can use just by yourself at self-checkout. (30:03) Jessie: Just be like, "Produce, here. It's time for boxed goods, here." It's all good. Okay. So now going back- (30:14) David: Oh, I did want to say this. I know this is a podcast, so it's not going to be as helpful, but whenever things like this occur, I like to imagine grids. And specifically four-part grids. Okay, so if you think about your conlang versus English or whatever your native language is, right? There are four regions here and the regions are based on: Does English have a word for it- a specific word for it or term? Does your conlang have a specific word for it or term? And so based on those two, you know, factors- the two languages are the two factors. There are four potential regions there. English has a word for it, and your conlang has a word for it. All right, not interesting. English doesn't have a word for it, your conlang doesn't have a word for it. Not particularly interesting. English doesn't have a word for it, your conlang does. Conlangers are great at this. It's that other region. English does have a word for it, your conlang does not. That's the one that conlangers have trouble with. And I- for me, it helps to conceptualize it that way because then I remember to kind of look at it. I just remember it, right? So hopefully maybe that'll prove helpful to another conlanger to kind of grid it out like that so that they can just remember because that's all it is. It's just remembering. If you remember it, you'll- you can try to do it. And that'll be fine. But it's the remembering that's the trick. (31:44) Jessie: So I was trying to jot up the four-part grid, and I realized the way I was doing it wasn't going to work because then I was like, "Ooh, I'll be fancy and put this on as a resource." Okay, I'll figure out how to make it a nice little chart. You know I like my charts. (32:12) David: Yeah. (32:13) Jessie: Okay, I'll have to fix that, though, because right now it doesn't make any sense. And it's not working the way it's supposed to. Okay. (32:19) David: Well, you- you see the same thing when it comes to opinion pieces that make a lot of waves. Like if you think about- there's say, some issue or law or whatever that affects one group over the other. Let's say men versus women, then there's automatically four regions. So, it affects women, but say it affects women in a way that is perceived as negative and not men. So there's men who are in favor of this thing. Not interesting. Women who are against this thing. Not- it's not going to make a lot of waves because you expect that. Then there's men who are opposed to it. It's like, okay, that's somewhat interesting but it doesn't really affect you. So, you know, the one that always gets it is the women who are in favor of it. In other words, the region, the- the- the group that's supposed to be negatively affected by it. Anytime anybody from that group will stand up and say, "I'm in favor of this thing," that'll just make huge waves, whether the- whether the opinion is based on substance at all or not. It's like there's always an opinion- there's always an opportunity for somebody from the group that is negatively affected to stand up and say, "Oh, but I think this is actually a good thing," and they will immediately- their opinion will be amplified. (33:51) Jessie: Very true. (33:52) David: Just because. Anyway. (33:54) Jessie: Okay, and it totally makes logical sense. It's just my little grid. I was jotting it down as you were speaking and it didn't look pretty, or as efficient as- well, at this point- you can see it. Let me zoom in on- (34:14) David: Ooh-oooh. (34:16) Jessie: Okay, so I was doing this <>. And then I was like, but it doesn't quite work because then each column is each language and- (34:23) David: No. (34:24) Jessie: Exactly see that didn't work. And so then I- Never mind. This is not going to come across on a podcast at all. Just know that my very first jotting down of a four-part grid, and I was like, "Oh, the rows equal this, the columns equal this." It doesn't, it doesn't correlate but I have notes. I'm going to fix it, and I will put a screenshot, because I have found that I can circle text and say, "Turn this into an image." And that's exciting. (34:52) David: So essentially, you want a row or a column, like a header. So on one side is conlang on the other side is English and then each one has "has word," "doesn't have word." (35:07) Jessie: Right. Right. And I figured that out after doing this first sample, and I was like, "Oh, that doesn't make sense." I figured that out. It's okay. It's okay. I will fix it. In the meantime- (35:24) David: Yes. (35:25) Jessie: We're gonna move on with this discussion because- (35:27) David: Yes. (35:28) Jessie: This is connected to the idea of, if the language is going to be efficient- because like natural languages you want- well, I'm not going to tell you what you want in your conlang. You can do whatever you want--it's your conlang. But if you are going for something more naturalistic, then you are going to want to keep that tension between the efficiency and specificity. And so then you have to decide what for your language is going to constitute the basic core vocabulary that, these things will have their own words or whatever you want to call them. They're going to have their own unmodified words where it's, you know, they have word in the language. But that leads to- this is a huge question. How do you decide what is going to constitute the basic core vocabulary in your conlang? What gets to count as one of those basic words? And that's where I'm going to say, "Tell us, David, how do you decide?" Very curious to know your thought process because I remember so many times when we've been working together, and you'd be like, "Really, they have a word for that? Just a word?" And, "Yes." And so I'm curious to hear your take on this before I give you my take. (36:50) David: My initial- my initial reaction is always to not create something, but to remix. That's always my initial reflex because it ends up- it ends up coming out for the better. Even if- even if you don't necessarily have to do it for a certain thing. It's- it's better to feel that way. I guess it's better to always ask, "Should this be a basic word?" versus the opposite is like, "Should this be a derived word?" Because the instinct when- you know, the initial instinct you have when creating languages is just that "new concept, brand new word." Totally underived. That's- it's easy. It's satisfying. In the old- I don't know if you've seen the- Was it the "Apologia Pro Imaginatione" essay by- (37:52) Jessie: I have not seen it, but I've heard of it. (37:55) David: It was- I mean the thesis was essentially like, you know, that conlanging is a godly activity. This is by Benct Philip Jonsson- No- what? No. Boudewijn. Boudewijn. Boudewijn Rempt. He wrote it. He was a- he was a Christian conlanger, and he was saying that people were kind of attacking his work because his speakers did things that were very unchristian. They were saying, "How would you do that?" In his defense of it- conlanging and, you know, thing in general, and he- he defended it as sub-creation. That was his term that he came up for it. He called it sub-creation, which was also John Milton's defense for writing Paradise Lost. Actually, he- he took- it was- it comes from the Adam and Eve story where, where God says to them, "Be fruitful and multiply." He took that to mean to, you know- he applied it generally. I don't know, look, a bunch of stuff is coming back to me from the spring of 2002 when I took that Milton course and all that. Did we- Did I read Paradise Lost twice? (39:26) Jessie: Really can't help you on that. (39:28) David: Oh, man. Like, would we have done Paradise Lost again in the Milton class if we'd done it in 45A? I can't imagine we would have. We read the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. You know about that. He wrote an entire book defending the Anglican Church's split from the Catholic Church, which of course was done so that Henry the what's-it could divorce his wife. And like he wrote an entire book on why "yes, it's- it's okay. That- that men can divorce their wives." That was of course it, not the other way around. I mean, who could imagine? Anyway, yeah, so pomegranates. No, I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. (40:16) Jessie: Well, I think you were gonna say something about the essay itself in talking about- (40:23) David: Oh, sub-creation. (40:24) Jessie: Yes, and conlangers coming up with words for everything. (40:27) David: So it's satisfying in a kind of bizarrely primal way. And now I'm thinking about the- the- how did how John Mulaney put it? The lightly misogynistic essay or story by Mark Twain about the creation of Adam and Eve, where Adam was just like a chill dude who wanted to just kind of exist and Eve insisted on giving names to all the animals, and he was like, "Why?" And so it's like an animal would come up and she'd just write a name and said, "There, that's its name." He's like, (41:02) Jessie: Done. (41:03) David: "Why is that its name? Why do we even need names?" Anyway, but so there's, there is a primal satisfaction and saying, "Here's a concept, here is a word. It exists in my conlang. My conlang is bigger, and it can talk about more stuff, and I just did it. It was quick. And there it is." So it's very satisfying. It's very satisfying. And so that's why I always try to buck against it because you never have to talk yourself into creating a word out of nothing. Because I will acknowledge it feels very nice. It feels very good. And so I'm always try- I always try to go the- the derivation route or the extension route- metaphorical extension route first. And only when that breaks down do I go to a root, and then in terms of like what words are roots, the Swadesh list is great for that. Otherwise, you really just have to, I guess, think through your culture and what it would have been like at its earliest stages, like what would have been important to them to talk about, use, and discuss from the earliest moments. And it's one of the reasons why you know you're pretty safe with a lot of immediate family relations. (42:30) Jessie: Right. Right. That's very true. And that in and of itself is interesting to see what relationships are distinguished in some languages and not in others. Because some are way more specific than (42:45) David: Yeah (42:46) Jessie: English is, which I find really fun. So you actually just mentioned Swadesh list, which is, of course, I think that's usually the go-to. So I think a lot of people will be immediately familiar with what that is, especially if you've been in conlanging for long. Just in case you aren't, I will attach a- whenever this podcast goes on to Patreon, I will make sure that I include that as a- as an attachment. There's tons of PDF Swadesh lists out there, but I'll attach one as a resource, just in case. (43:18) David: We should mention why the Swadesh list is useful for word creation or for root creation. Or you can- (43:26) Jessie: I'll let you tackle that. (43:28) David: OK, so the Swadesh list was actually designed for elicitation. So it was designed for phonology, not for meanings or anything, but this linguist Swadesh came up with this list of words that were unlikely to be borrowed. And it just so happens that a list of words that are unlikely to be borrowed also happened to be unlikely to be derived even internally within the language. That wasn't the intent, but it is the upshot of it. Now it's certainly not always the case. Not every single word will always not be borrowed, but he was just- He just noticed that there's a higher than average chance that these words will be native words and that was important for phonological elicitation because he wanted to get- be sure he was getting native phonemes as opposed to borrowed phonemes. So, you know, like in English, [ʒ], it's a phoneme, but it's not native, right. It came to us from French. And so the theory is if like you're looking at the English Swadesh list, you're not going to find [ʒ] on there anywhere because a lot of those words are going to come from native English roots. And so that's why it's a good place to start for roots, because it's like a lot of these things, there's a good chance they will be basic. They don't need to all be basic. But there's a good chance they will be basic. And there's a good chance that- that your- that your speakers will not have borrowed them from other languages, meaning that you don't have to worry about "Should these be borrowed?" if they exist in a universe with other speakers. (45:06) Jessie: So along with the Swadesh list, and one of the reasons I let you tackle that one is because I'm about to tell you another list of basic vocabulary. And I know I'm gonna say it wrong. The Leipzig- is it "Yakarta?" or "Jakarta?" List. (45:24) David: Oh, I would just say Jakarta, because it's a city that still exists. And we have a pronunciation for it in English, right. (45:34) Jessie: Well, I always mispronounce every proper noun we have. So I always- I say Jakarta, but then I always assume I'm wrong. So then I was like, maybe- and I was right, Jakarta, my original thought I should have gone with, but yeah in Indonesia. And I just looked it up. Are you looking it up, too? (45:56) David: I was looking at specifically the Leipzig-Jakarta List to see if it was in reference to some specific person's last name, and so you were supposed to pronounce it like their last name. (46:06) Jessie: No, no. I think it's the location because I actually think it's the location of the scholars. Yeah, it is for the location where it was conceived and created. (46:17) David: Became available in 2009? This is brand new. I am excited to learn about this. (46:24) Jessie: So there is- And I don't know if I can share the full article, but what I can do is share the list that I've created from it. And what they do is because the Swadesh list is amazing, but it's also- it was created before there was a lot of quantifiable evidence. And so it was more based on, "I have a lot of experience with language. And here's the words that tend to be native." So what the Leipzig-Jakarta List does is they actually quantify it and they came up with the 100 most- and they call it "borrowing resistant items" in the meaning list. And so it's 100 like the others, but what they do is they then basically rank borrowability of words. And so it's like it's really, really cool. And obviously, it's not going to be true against, you know, all languages, but in- there's a particular article by Uri Tadmor who- and in it, there is a table where it actually compares the Swadesh list to the Leipzig-Jakarta List and there are definitely overlaps. So the Swadesh list is great, but then there are also some deviance- some (47:50) David: Yeah. (47:50) Jessie: Deviations? That doesn't sound right. (47:54) David: Grease? Really? Wow. (47:57) Jessie: Right, and some of them are quite surprising. Whenever I was looking at it and so I had actually- and I don't remember if they did it, or if I got this idea. And so I can't for sure say why I put it in this order, but I was making a handout for my students, and looking through the article, I think this may have just been me doing it. I actually made like a semantic category kind of list, like the body parts go together, animals together, so that way my students could more quickly find the 100 words by something other than just ranking of borrowability. (48:37) David: Nice. (48:38) Jessie: Or borrowing resistance. At any rate, same concept as the Swadesh list, but with numerical data to back it up. (48:46) David: Well, I mean, it's the same as a Swadesh list but better. (48:50) Jessie: Right, it's the updated- and so I'm actually now- I try to champion for for that particular list. And if you're looking on your phone and seeing it, that means it's freely available. (49:02) David: Yes, yeah. Absolutely. It's on Wikipedia. (49:05) Jessie: Wonderful. (49:07) David: That would be hilarious if it costs money. (49:15) Jessie: Would be hilarious if Wikipedia cost money, or if the list did? (49:20) David: Both, but I know I'm just thinking the list. It's like- I'm just imagining like a New York Times article and so it's like you're- you're looking at the list. And it's like, "Ant, back, bitter" and then it gets a little blurry. It says, "If you'd like to see the rest of this list, please subscribe." (49:40) Jessie: That would be terrible. Anyway, so that is a great way to start in terms of understanding "Is this a word that is likely to be basic?" Anyway. Great way to start. (49:54) David: I love it. I love it because it's better than what I just said. I just wasted everybody's time. (50:04) Jessie: You have to know what the Swadesh list is because that is seriously the number one resource that I think people think of when they're- whenever they're in those beginning stages of vocabulary development. And maybe you've seen the name out there. Maybe you heard other people use it but just didn't know what it was. And so I feel like that's a necessary sort of historical thing to start with before going into- because not as many people- and by not as many, you didn't really know about it. It's so- Obviously not as many people know about the Leipzig-Jakarta List. And so I thought it was- it was better to start with Swadesh. (50:42) David: Let me come into lecture your- lecture your class, not knowing about it. I looked a fool. You all just have a great big laugh about it when I left? (50:52) Jessie: No, but you didn't focus on the Swadesh list, either. That wasn't the point of your talk. (50:56) David: No, but I looked like somebody that didn't know it existed. (50:59) Jessie: We didn't talk about it when you were there. (51:02) David: I know, and that was very nice of you. You guys spared my feelings. Because, I mean, you know, I just would have been sitting there, you would have said Leipzig-Jakarta. I'm like, "The what?" And like your students would have laughed like, "Is he joking?" The Leipzig-Jakarta List. They like hold up an IPA chart. "Do you know what this is?" (51:33) Jessie: "You see these other basic resources?" Oh my goodness, nothing of that sort, ever would have happened. Okay, so this, by the way, I was trying to think of examples in English of basic vocabulary versus derived forms, and I don't know why this sort of sent me- I love etymologies and I know we've talked about this before, specifically in the podcast, just like that feeling of being overwhelmed, where you can read back on the journey a word took and think, like, I think it was even last episode you had said this, like somebody thought to use it in this way. And then as a conlanger or to be like "I need to try to think like this." I happened to be looking around my- my living room as I was jotting down notes, and I saw the door frame and I saw a picture frame and I'm like "frame." It's a single word. Where did that come from? It's from the Old English "framian," which meant "to be useful." That was a verb meaning to be useful. As a side note, it's older root- So the older root behind that verb actually gave us our word "from." And so "frame" and "from" come from the same like super, super old root. So it's related way back. Okay, so that's- that's step one. Because then I was like, "How in the world that that become an outline mechanism?" From "be useful?" (53:04) David: It's very useful. (53:07) Jessie: In Middle English, it took on the meaning "to make ready for use." So instead of "being useful," it was now a verb meaning "you have to make something ready for use," which led to the extended meaning of "to prepare timber for use and building." So it became like extended but also very specific. (53:25) David: Oh, like a house frame. Yeah. (53:28) Jessie: Right. And that was the original. And so then it became a verb meaning to make the wooden parts the framework of a building. And that led to this idea of structure. And so then you see the sort of metaphorical extension meaning structure and a doorframe gives it structure, a picture frame gives it structure. Bangs can frame your face. A frame of reference- more abstract, but we- we use- we as- and as if I had any part of this. I'm a modern speaker, but the speakers used this word to cover all of the meanings that they needed that meant this idea of being outlined and structured. They didn't create new words for it because why would you? Frame. You get it. You know what I mean. But that is super hard. So that's why I wanted to start with talking about kids. Because I think a potential way that you can take that leap is to not only get the minds of your speakers and try to think of, you know, like, as they're exploring the world, what will they find? But to also think about a child and think about, like, if I were a kid, what might I make connections between? And it will never be perfect because it's hard to get past your own ways of thinking, but it can be exciting because you can make these connections and be super proud of them. And that to me is really fun. (54:52) David: That is. Wow. You know what I was imagining. I was imagining like somebody was like the keeper of the English language. And they have like this, this word like it keeps coming- like just this little kid keeps coming. "Can I use this for this?" "No!" "Can I use it for that?" "Fine." "Can I use it to mean useful?" Like, "Yes, that's okay." It's like, "Okay. Okay. Okay. Can I use it for this yet?" "No!" "Okay, can we use it for 'to make useful'?" It's like "Yes, that's fine." (55:25) Jessie: Close enough. (55:26) David: And then pretty soon, once it- it got to "structure," just like he gave up. (55:33) Jessie: Whatever. (55:33) David: Use it for whatever you want. "Thanks, frame!" (55:35) Jessie: Not even paying attention anymore. (55:37) David: "No, not like that!" Yeah, that would be a good word for the dividers at the grocery store. After all, they are useful. They also provide structure. (55:51) Jessie: They do, they do. Social structure. (55:53) David: They- they also frame your groceries nicely. (56:01) Jessie: One from the next. However, "frame" does not give me the sense of dividing. (56:07) David: No. (56:08) Jessie: And so I could not call it a frame because it's not containing it, it's dividing it. (56:14) David: No, but I think that you should start doing it to see how it confuses people. You know, "can you pass me that frame?" Oh, do you want another bizarre Meridian story that (56:32) Jessie: Always. (56:33) David: It was the two of us. Growing up, we each had alternate lyrics for "Row, row, row your boat" that we came up with independently and liked better than the original in the exact same spot. So, you know, "row, row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily," I used to say, "life is but a knife." (56:53) Jessie: Oh, okay. (56:54) David: Or life- "life is like a knife." (56:57) Jessie: Okay. (56:58) David: I would say that, and I would laugh. And then, you know, people would look and say, "That's not the words. That's not what- that's not how it goes." I'm like, "but I just like it." Meridian has "merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life's a piece of cake." (57:12) Jessie: I like hers better, I have to say. (57:15) David: Well, but how do you serve cake? (57:26) Jessie: With a knife. So the father-daughter pairing of the song means we actually get to eat cake is what I'm hearing. (57:32) David: I'm down. Man, I could really use a birthday cake right now. Hey, speaking of birthday cakes, whose birthday is coming up next? (57:45) Jessie: Oh. Oh. Sorry, there's going to be the phone in the background. (57:50) David: And celebration noise. (57:53) Jessie: Yay! We're all excited. Well, actually, and the great thing is, by the time everybody's listening to this, the answer will be Chris. (58:02) David: Oh. (58:03) Jessie: Because, even though mine is tomorrow, his is in early June. So- (58:08) David: Oh, wow, really? (58:12) Jessie: Yeah. (58:13) David: My mother's is actually on June 3. That'll be- Yeah. Have to figure out how to get a present over there. (58:25) Jessie: Amazon? (58:26) David: Yeah. Yeah, that's probably it. That's probably it. (58:32) Jessie: Or you do the old knock and run. (58:34) David: On an ordinary day on- in an ordinary year, how do you celebrate your birthday? (58:41) Jessie: Um, usually not doing too much, sometimes like a game night or something. That's usually the extent of it. (58:48) David: No plane trip to Shreveport? (58:50) Jessie: No. Because usually- well, actually, I kind of told a fib by accident there because if this were a normal year, I would actually not be in Texas right now because I always pick up Will on his last day of school and we drive straight to Missouri to see my dad and- and his wife. And so usually right now, I would be in Missouri, and this would not be possible because, as you well know, once I'm in Missouri, I have no internet or cell phone service. And so the past three years, my birthday has happened to fall while we were either driving to Missouri or in Missouri. (59:32) David: Wow. Now that's something. (59:35) Jessie: But when I do, celebrate. It's usually a game day or game night, but I have to, like, I'm the baker of the family. So I make my own cake or cupcakes or whatever. (59:49) David: I feel like, you know, you could do something like go to one of those restaurants that has an outdoor area where you throw beanbags. It just seems like something that might happen on your birthday in an ordinary year. (01:00:08) Jessie: Are you referring to the fact that I'm in Missouri, or that I live in Texas? (01:00:12) David: No, I just- I'm just imagining, what would Jessie do on her birthday? Probably go to one of those restaurants that has an outdoor area where you can throw beanbags. (01:00:22) Jessie: But why would you need to go to a restaurant when you can just go camping and do it by your own campfire? (01:00:29) David: Why would you do that? Let's, let's, let's stop there a moment. Why would you ever go camping? Did you realize that human civilization was created, and we have a place called indoors where there are no bugs and dirt? (01:00:47) Jessie: Man, you are just missing out. I grew up camping. It's great fun. (01:00:52) David: And not only that, we have a much more efficient way of distributing heat. We don't need a fire anymore. (01:01:02) Jessie: Oh, totally missing out. Also missing out is my thought that I was going to use at the end of this to bring us back to conlanging although birthdays are always fun to discuss. But now I can't remember what I was going to say, I should have jotted it down and it was something poignant and I'm sure very memorable and something that would have just absolutely blown everyone away. And now I can't remember it. (01:01:35) David: And it crucially, crucially relied on you remembering what that word that Will used was. (01:01:41) Jessie: It probably does. It probably does. I just remembered it because it was a rainbow. It was a rainbow. And he said it was iridescent. (01:01:53) David: Ooh. (01:01:55) Jessie: And I was like, "Well, that works." But then he called something else iridescent. And I was like, "Hmm, really?" And so that was the word. Oh no, I think you have frozen. I think Zoom has decided. (01:02:09) David: Uh-oh. (01:02:10) Jessie: Are you back? (01:02:12) David: Uh-oh. (01:02:14) Jessie: What? Oh, this is funny. (01:02:15) David: Jessie, if you can hear me, you've gone robot. I think maybe I- uh-oh. (01:02:22) Jessie: I think we're back. You just moved. (01:02:24) David: Oh, I think we're back. You just moved. It tells me my internet connection is unstable. It seems like it's always my fault. I don't know what's going on, but so I heard iridescent. And I know that he was describing the rainbow as iridescent. You were then going to say that he went on to describe something else as iridescent. What was that? (01:02:48) Jessie: But I don't remember what else it was. So I don't remember the second thing. I just remember thinking, "Well, that's an odd description" and that's when I asked, and he just was like, "No, but I have a feeling." (01:03:02) David: So, I'm gonna- I'm gonna embarrass a very good friend of mine because it's a lot of fun to embarrass him, but the very first time- I have two friends and they're brothers. But the very first time I went over to my friend David Ortiz's house to spend the night and also the very first time I ever went over there- odd coincidence, by the way is through sheer happenstance that I'm David Peterson and not David Ortiz. Because that's my mother's maiden name and she was married to my birth father for like the blink of an eye. Basically enough time to give me the name Peterson and then that was it. He was out of my life forever. So it's really remarkable that I'm David Peterson and not David Ortiz, which would have been wild since there was another David Ortiz in my class who was my friend. Anyway- (01:03:50) Jessie: That would have been great. Do you know how many pranks you could have pulled based on that? (01:03:55) David: Oh, let me tell you about pranks that I pulled for- in his benefit in junior high, but that's a later story. (01:04:01) Jessie: Another story. Okay, going on. (01:04:02) David: And then, of course, both of our identities would have been wiped out at the same time when the very famous baseball player David Ortiz, you know, came to prominence. Like I can, as David Peterson, I can beat the Ontario Premier. No, I'm sorry, what did I just say? So help me you edit that out. As David Peterson, I can beat the Premier of Ontario in search results. But, I mean, there was no way I would ever beat David Ortiz, the famous, you know, World Series winning baseball player ever. So, I- I'm kind of glad that I'm David- David Peterson and not Ortiz. But anyway, so I go to his house. Right? And it's, you know, his mother and father, his brother and sister, all six of us. And for dinner, you know, as I'm spending the night over there, his dad brings home pizza for us and his little brother, we're both in third grade. So his little brother would have been in first, or maybe kindergarten. I think it was first- goes over to the pizza kind of very demonstrably goes to this pizza, as it was opened up and smells it and goes, "<> This pizza smells raunchy." And we all start laughing and- and Dave's dad was, you know, kind of a big joker. He says, "All right, if you think it smells raunchy then I guess you don't get any." And he's just- his face falls. He goes, "What did I say, what did I say?" He had no idea that "raunchy" meant something bad. He just heard it somewhere and thought it was like, you know, a popular word for "good." (01:05:47) Jessie: That is great. I feel like "raunchy" would have been used a lot when we were younger, so I can see why someone would have heard that and maybe made a miss- a mismatch. (01:06:00) David: Yeah, cuz, you know, he was super young and so this would be 1989. (01:06:05) Jessie: Wow, that is amazing. Okay, I think that's the best story to end with- with the raunchy pizza. So all that is to say, you know, think about what words should be there. It's all very deep. Okay, okay. I always ask you, "Do you have anything you want to say at the end?" And you always say you need to start writing things down and- you're pinching your nose. (01:06:39) David: I forgot! (01:06:40) Jessie: So I'm going to take it that, no, that didn't happen. And so we're going to end with the classic "stay grammar." And until next time, have fun conlanging.