The Láadan Language
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
To suggest other questions, or to comment on the questions shown, please email Suzette Haden Elgin at email@example.com
Q1. Why did you construct the Láadan language?
I had four reasons....
Q2. The Láadan Grammar & Dictionary says that itís a "case grammar." Whatís a case gram- mar? And why did you do the grammar that way?
The word "case" in this context refers to the roles that nominals have in a sentence with respect to its predicate. That is, a case category in "The kids ate the pizza really fast on the porch last night " specifies who did the eating, what was eaten, where the eating happened and when, and how -- in what way -- the eating happened. Linguists analyze languages using a theoretical model; some of us prefer the case grammar model. I used the case grammar model for my dissertation on Navajo syntax, and Iíve always used it for any language that I was teaching (including English), and it has served me well. In my opinion, there is no clearer way to describe and discuss a language. (Case grammar in contemporary linguistics is usually associated with the work of Charles Fillmore.)
Q3. Is it hard to construct a language? Doesnít it take a very long time?
That depends on how you define "language" and "construct." By some definitions, a language could be made up of only A, B, and a "repeat" symbol; its utterances would be AB, ABB, ABBB, ABBBB, and so on. I could put together a dozen of those in five minutes, and nothing could be easier. If youíre talking about something intended to be usable as a human language, itís more complicated -- but not as complicated as looking at some constructed languages might lead you to believe. No law requires a constructed language to have seventy different meaningful sounds or fifty different personal pronouns or two hundred verb endings; the "constructors" may choose to provide all those things, but they donít have to. The set of things that human languagesmust include isnít very large; I could easily construct several languages in a single day. Any decent computer programmer could set up a computer to construct twenty-five of them in a single day.
Having said that, however, I have to explain a thing or two. Itís one thing to construct something that meets the definition of a human language, in theoretical terms; thatís not terribly difficult. But languages donít live because they meet a list of specifications. They live because they are used and loved and worked with and treasured; they live because they are associated with a culture. When Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings he was taking steps to provide his Elvish languages with a culture, so that they might become more than just squiggles on a page. Constructing a language that might become a living human language is a like writing a novel or composing a symphony, with all that that entails. Itís not just a matter of meeting technical specifications. It could take a lifetime. (If youíre interested in looking at a lot of constructed languages, go to Google, type "constructed languages auxiliary languages artificial languages" in the search box, and follow the links.)
Q4. Is it possible to get permission to do things with Láadan? What if I want to write poetry in Láadan, for example, or fiction? What if I want to start a Láadan study group? What if I want to make some changes in the language?
No living human language is "owned" by anyone or anything. Since Láadan was launched as a scientific experiment, intended to live or die on its own like any other language, there was no way I could "own" it except in the sense of having copyrighted its original form. From the very beginning, every chance I got, I made it clear that I not only was willing to have other people do things with the language, I encouraged it. Nobody has to have my permission; nobody has to clear what they do with me, or report to me, or anything like that. People who want me to credit them for new Láadan words and materials in a future edition of the Láadan Grammar & Dictionary (and when I write or speak about the language) have to send me what theyíve done; thereís no other way for me to know about it. But thatís entirely up to them.
About making changes.... Adding new words, as long as they follow the rules of the Láadan sound system, is always fine; thatís how real languages work. Adding new rules to the language -- new grammar rules, new sound system rules, and so on -- is different. Of course people can do that. But they need to know that what they have after they make the change is no longer Láadan -- itís something else, the way "Esperanto Reformed" is no longer Esperanto. Rule changes certainly occur in living languages, but not because they are "decreed"; they happen gradually, over time, as a consensus develops about them among speakers of the language.
Right now, for example, English is losing the distinction between "may" and "might," so that younger people say "If he had known that, he may have left." For me (age sixty-six) that has to be "If he had known that, he might have left." The developing native-speaker consensus is that "might" as the past of "may" isnít needed, and its demise is inevitable. But the change is happening over decades, and itís happening in the living speech and writing of many thousands of English speakers; itís not happening because someone got up one morning and published a new rule.
Iím always interested in whatís happening with Láadan, and Iím always more than willing to offer advice if itís asked for; Iím pleased when people tell me about their projects -- but they donít have to. If some media mogul were to try to publish a Láadan grammar or use the language in a movie or anything of that kind without involving me I would fight that, on principle. But otherwise, Láadan is on its own.
Copyright © 2002 by Suzette Haden Elgin