How do Tamarians.....

[alpha_leonis]

That's a very interesting analogy. But the problem is Tamarians don't seem to understand plainly spoken language - it would be as if the Japanese only wrote in kanji and found kana perplexing. Dathon risks and ultimately loses his life in an effort to be comprehensible to Picard, so if he really did understand Picard's speech as a child language, he would have at least tried it.

That is a good counterpoint, Kegek. My response would be to expand a bit on my Japanese analogy. (Recognizing, of course, that any discussion is only hypothetical, since the episode doesn't really give us enough information to do more than speculate.)

A lot of non-native Japanese students consider written Japanese a very difficult system to learn, and rightly so. Japanese literally has the most complicated written language on Earth -- not only because of the kanji-kana combination, but also because there are literally thousands of individual kanji to learn (while less than a hundred kana, even if you count both of its forms). One has to know about 2,000 kanji just to read a Japanese newspaper; 3,000 or more to read a college textbook. All of this requires a huge expenditure of the country's educational resources -- a Japanese person literally has to be a high school graduate in order to be considered literate in the language.

But once that effort has been put in, Japanese people tell me that it's actually harder to go back and read Japanese in kana alone. It's a quirk of spoken Japanese that there is a limited sound inventory, which leads to a lot of homonyms (multiple words with different meanings that are pronounced the same). Japanese can be written in kana by itself, but it's not -- the metaphorical meanings that are connected with each kanji make up for the limited sound system. Kanji clarifies the content of the writing, while kana alone would only carry the sound -- and sound-writing only is not enough for a language like Japanese.

The best analogy I can think of (and it's not a very good one) is that reading Japanese without kanji is a lot like reading English without any spaces between the words. It can be written that way, but it's much harder to read, because too much of the content has been lost.

The only way a Tamarian-style language makes sense to me is if spoken Tamarian has the same dual nature. They must have basic grammar: "Darmok and Jilad at Tenagra", in the original Tamarian, must have words that the Universal Translator understands as "and" and "at".

Somehow, for reasons unknown to us in the audience, speaking Tamarian with basic grammar only may be more difficult to speak and understand than attaching the metaphorical content to a "real" conversation. Due to Tamarian culture, psychology or biology, it may be very difficult (or impossible) for them to revert to basic-grammar conversations once they've learned their metaphorical language, in much the same way it's more difficult to read Japanese in kana only.

 

[Timo]

To attack this from another angle, we have to hypotesize on how the Universal Translator really works.

If it merely crunches the hard data of the sounds it hears, trying to sort out the content by classic methods of cryptography, then it remains unexplained how it can translate things like Bajoran at all, let alone instantaneously from the first phrase on. Every language should be a challenge as formidable as Tamarianese, with only the roughest basics like "and" and "at" guessed after listening to a dozen or so phrases.

If, however, the UT features a psionic component to it, then its behavior makes much more sense. Not "supernatural", necessarily, but a component that bypasses language entirely and instead goes for the intended meaning directly. Say, if everybody had a UT circuit hooked into their brain between the parts that process sound or vision and the parts that process language, it would naturally follow that every incoming language and lip movement would be interpreted as the sounds and movements that accompany the message in the listener's native language. The machine wouldn't have to do that - the brain itself would do it, cued by the UT.

Now assume the speaker has this circuit as well. Every space traveler probably would have it, at least on the listening mode. Alien circuits would interface effortlessly, because the interface would consist of sounds and gestures and the organs used for making and receiving those - it would not be dependent on the circuit itself. The Child of Tama now thinks in Tamarianese, and his organs generate Tamarian sounds and gestures out of this. Picard's organs receive those, slightly preprocess them, and feed them to his implanted UT circuit (which may be augmented by the processor badge he wears over his left nipple). This uses cryptography and the precedent of other known languages to divine the meaning, at least superficially so, and feeds it deeper into Picard's brain which may then give feedback for further refinement, much as happens with the natural processing of language. But what if the UT also hopefully listens for any direct signals from its alien counterpart? It then applies the cryptography magic directly on the signals of alien intent as well as those of alien expression, thus improving the performance manyfold.

This would work fine with most languages - the clash between glimpsed intention and the formalism of expression would in fact help better understand the language. But
for a Tamarian, the clash would be more extreme than for many others. The intent he would be feeding to his organs (through his UT, which Picard's machine listens to) would already be more heavily laden with symbolism than that of any other culture. Picard's UT would not realize that the supposed "intent" data it was gleaning was already of "higher order", and would become hopelessly confused.

No matter what the fictional reality behind the Tamarian case, some sort of a psionic mutual understanding between UT circuits will probably have to be assumed if we want to believe in the instant clarity of the witnessed UT translations. A realistic pure cryptography machine, no matter how capable as a computing device, would need more time and more input before it started working properly.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kegek]

alpha_leonis... I have to admit, that really makes a lot more sense.

Timo, it's true that there are conceptual problems behind the Universal Translator to begin with. For the purposes of this episode, though, the important thing is that the Universal Translator apparently only translates literal meanings. True, it does this far better than any other literal translation; and also true, it sometimes catches nuances which realistically no literal translation would provide, but there you have it.

But I'm not sure it works psionically. It took a while - and gradual word recognition - to translate the Skreean language in "Sanctuary", which suggests it actually does require that kind of input data.

 

[Christopher]

ask for a drink of tea?

They point at the teakettle.

say engage warp drive?

We know this one: "Mirab, his sails unfurled."

say i'm tired i'm going to bed?

They yawn.

say what time is it?

They look at their watches.

Now that's a nice mystery unto itself: why is left considered bad and wrong? In English, "lyft" appears to have originally meant "feeble"; many other languages derive their words for left from similar roots. Does the global dissing of the "sinister side" derive simply from the fact that we are right-handed, then?

That seems to be the case. There have been cultures that have aggressively persecuted lefthandedness. A century or two ago in America/Europe, it was treated pretty much the way many people still see homosexuality today, as an unnatural perversion that needed to be "cured" or repressed by any means including psychological torture.


Smiley mentioned the annotations for my "Darmok"-sequel story "Friends With the Sparrows" in the TNG The Sky's the Limit anthology. Here's the link to the essay on Tamarian language that I wrote while researching that story, which itself contains links to two great online analyses of "Darmok":

http://home.fuse.net/ChristopherLBennett/Tamarian grammar.htm

What I found in studying the Tamarian passages Joe Menosky created for the episode is that they do have their own surprisingly consistent grammar to them -- but with enough inconsistencies to be believable as a language. The essay covers the basic grammatical rules I divined.

What seemed key to me is that Tamarian essentially has no verbs. It's a language based in images rather than actions. That suggested to me that the Tamarians have a very different perception of time than we do. Data also said that their sense of ego-identity is very different from ours. That's why they can't communicate in a language like ours -- because the concepts of time flow, cause and effect, identity, agency, and action that are basic to our languages are alien to them. The spoken Tamarian we hear is just the UT's best attempt at converting Tamarian into phrases that are coherent in English, interpolating words like "and" or "the" when necessary.


A frequent criticism of Tamarian is that they have to have the ability to communicate the myths in some conventional way in the first place before they can know how to use them as shorthand. I think that's based on a misunderstanding of how language acquisition works. From a recent post on Language Log (emphasis mine):

Experiments on vocabulary sizes at different ages suggest that children must learn an average of more than 10 items per day, day in and day out, over long periods of time.

A sample calculation:

* 40,000 items learned in 10 years
* 10 x 365 = 3,650 days
* 40,000 words / 3,650 days = 10.96 words per day

Most of this learning is without explicit instruction, just from hearing the words used in meaningful contexts. Usually, a word is learned after hearing only a handful of examples. Experiments have shown that young children can learn a word (and retain it for at least a year) from hearing just one casual use.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005437.html

By the same token, Tamarian children would just pick up the meaning of phrases from hearing them used in context. They wouldn't necessarily need to hear the myth of Darmok or the myth of Shaka as a linear narrative in order to understand the particular references, any more than we have to study the etymology of the word "run" to learn what it means and how to use it.

In my story, I do assume there is a more detailed way of teaching the myths, but I base it more on body language and acting out than a linear narrative in our sense. I even do a passage of Othello Tamarian-style to show how it would translate. I also assume in the story that a lot of meaning is conveyed by gestural language and intonation, supplementing the spoken words.

(Note: in the Tamarian grammar essay, I assert one thing that I've recently learned is a factual error: the assumption that "Picard's" is short for "Picard his." Apparently this is an etymological urban myth.)

 

[All Seeing Eye]

They point at the teakettle.

Yes, because when I go into a restaurant i'm going to go into the kitchen and point at the kettle, not only will I go to all that trouble but this obviously means I want a drink of tea and not coffee.
When i'm at home and my wife asks me to be so kind as to make her a tea shes going to go into the kitchen and point at the kettle, she might aswell just make her own tea!!!!!
Need I go on.

We know this one: "Mirab, his sails unfurled."

What speed would that be then? and what course?

They look at their watches.

If they have watches whats the point in asking what time it is in the first place.

 

[Christopher]

They point at the teakettle.

Yes, because when I go into a restaurant i'm going to go into the kitchen and point at the kettle, not only will I go to all that trouble but this obviously means I want a drink of tea and not coffee.
When i'm at home and my wife asks me to be so kind as to make her a tea shes going to go into the kitchen and point at the kettle, she might aswell just make her own tea!!!!!
Need I go on.

No, because you're describing the way a human would do it. It is a grave mistake to assume that the way we communicate is the only possible way of doing it. For that matter, there are millions of hearing-impaired human beings who communicate just fine with sign language instead of speech. Indeed, it's now believed that humans evolved a fully developed sign language before we evolved spoken language.

Besides, I was being somewhat facetious. I'm saddened that you choose to respond only to the superficial, teasing part of my response rather than the more in-depth, serious portion.

We know this one: "Mirab, his sails unfurled."

What speed would that be then? and what course?

See my essay and, if possible, my story. That information could be conveyed through gesture and intonation. There are human languages that use intonation to convey meaning; in Chinese, the same syllable can have several totally different meanings depending on how it's intoned. Even English uses intonation and expression to convey meaning -- for instance, rolling the eyes and speaking sarcastically is the equivalent of adding a negative to the sentence. There's no reason another language couldn't use the same means to convey, say, numerical information.

Also, we saw in "Darmok" that the Tamarians used written language, which they may have used to convey concepts that have no spoken equivalents in their language. We do that with musical notation, for instance.

They look at their watches.

If they have watches whats the point in asking what time it is in the first place.

Exactly. That's the point of my joke. There are other ways of gaining information, even among humans.

 

[Kegek]

There is another informative and in-depth discussion of Tamarian which I found most enlightening, written by one Raphael Carter. It can be found here.

 

[Christopher]

^^Yep, that's one of the two sites I linked to from my essay.

 

[Immolatus]

I have to say this is one of the best threads I have read in a long time

 

[MrPointy]

Seriously, if there's one Trek book I'd buy, it'd be the Darmoktionary.

 

[nx1701g]

Just because we don't understand them doesn't mean they don't understand one another.

 

[The Borg Queen]

The thing about using metaphor to communicate with, is how do you explain what they mean?

Without being able to explain the story behind the metaphor, how is anyone supposed to know that "Cochrane and the Vulcans" is a metaphor for First Contact, for instance?

 

[Michael]

Without being able to explain the story behind the metaphor, how is anyone supposed to know that "Cochrane and the Vulcans" is a metaphor for First Contact, for instance?

Of course they all have seen Star Trek: First Contact.

 

[Christopher]

The thing about using metaphor to communicate with, is how do you explain what they mean?

The same way we "explain" to our children what individual words mean. See the quote from Language Log in my earlier post: most vocabulary in real life isn't learned by having the meaning, etymology, and history of the word explained in detail; it's simply picked up through everyday observation and experience. A single word is just as symbolic as a metaphor; I mean, it's just a bunch of sounds, and unless it's onomatopoiea like "meow" or "crash," the sounds don't have any literal relationship to their meaning. So you have to learn what they mean by observing how they're used in context by the people around you. It's no different if the symbols are multi-word metaphorical phrases.

Heck, the episode itself shows us this process in action. Picard doesn't have the underlying myths explained to him at all, yet he's able to pick up the meaning of the metaphors from context, and within a day or two is conversant enough in that vocabulary to communicate meaningfully in it, even though he still doesn't know the stories that underlie the phrases. No doubt Tamarian children learn vocabulary in the exact same way. Learning the full stories behind the metaphors is probably a matter of more scholarly study, like learning the etymology of words in our language. It's not necessary for basic communication. For instance, we all know the word "metaphor," but most of us probably don't know that it's from Greek roots meaning "to carry beyond." But that lack of knowledge of the term's origins doesn't impede our ability to use it.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I believe the problem many of us here have with this episode is, that for a change the writers actually showed us sort of an alien language. Of course they didn't have the time to develop a full grammatical system or vocabulary. Only those parts of the language that are necessary to tell this particular episode. Of course it doesn`t make sense... yet.

 

[cultcross]

WHAT! English is the easiest language there is to learn and the most straight forward in the world and likely the universe,

Straightforward?! English is an extremely complex and illogical language. True, we've done away with gender (all but completely) and accents (mostly) but we have some of the most complex and variable sentence structure of any language. Our vocabulary is twice the size of any other and still half our words can have 4 or more completely different meanings, sometimes contradictory, and many words which appear to be synonyms are not used as such. Just something as simple as reversing sentence structure, Joe owned the house/The house was owned by Joe, is a difference unknown to most European languages. And our spelling is one of the most nonsensical and inconsistent in the world, incorporating sounds, such as 'th', unique to English.

Because of its complexity and vocabulary range, English is capable of the most fantastic, subtle and beautiful constructions, giving it an arguable edge as a language in that respect, but it does not make for a language anyone could describe as 'simple'. It is easy for you because you speak it. Seems an obvious point, but it's true. It's a wonder that anyone who doesn't grow up with English ever learns it, really.

 

[lovetrek74]

A language always seems straightforward and concise to its native speakers. Just as one's hometown, with all of its byways, alleyways, streets, not to mention the different people with different personalities and all the political ramifications and relationships, seems natural and easy. You know where the shortcuts are, you know which fences can safely be jumped and you know which people you should never make angry.

But, let an outsider get involved and WOW! Instant confusion for the poor outsider. Someone yells, "Freeze!" and there is a dead body on the lawn.

This was the whole point of this episode and, clearly, FIRE didn't get it. No offense intended, but truly the very trek-type point here is that, indeed, there are other viewpoints that make our common understanding seem...inexplicable.

English is not, in general, concise. Believing so is a sign of ignorance.
English is not, in general, logical. Believing so is a sign of naivity.

All languages have some areas that are concise or logical and other areas that are not. At least in my experience (I've studied a few: Spanish, Latin, Russian, French, Japanese with professional teachers, and Italian and Swahili by myself).

I have seen various non-English speakers say, in very few words, things that would take a whole huge paragraph for me to explain. And I am talking about concepts which exist in English as well as the other language.

If the concepts in questions are foreign to English, even more words would be necessary.

It is unwise to take this episode so literally. It is a beautiful episode with a wonderful message: We don't need to hate and fear "the other".

It is perfect GR and perfect Trek.

If that meaning was lost to you, then you are poorer, I think.

Best

LT74

 

[Count Zero]

And our spelling is one of the most nonsensical and inconsistent in the world, incorporating sounds, such as 'th', unique to English.

I agree with the first part of the sentence. My parents try to learn English and are very confused by the lack of pronounciation rules. The "th" isn't unique to English, though. The Greeks have it, too. (The letter is called theta)

 

[All Seeing Eye]

And our spelling is one of the most nonsensical and inconsistent in the world, incorporating sounds, such as 'th', unique to English.

I agree with the first part of the sentence. My parents try to learn English and are very confused by the lack of pronounciation rules. The "th" isn't unique to English, though. The Greeks have it, too. (The letter is called theta)

I dont understand how anyone can say that English spelling is nonsensical, in English the word is spoken like it is spelt unlike French for example where some letter e's can have a different pronunciation etc etc or Polish where many of the letters are completely silent.
English by comparison is yes more complex and vast a language but much easier because of it. With English you can create any sentence you want by simply fitting together the necessary words, in other languages depending on the sentence you have to use completely different wording especially with Arabic.
Go to a translator website and try translating sentences and you get nonsense back from it, other languages just dont have the same freedom as English.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Take this translation for example:

English: she said she was not going to go to the park but she changed her mind and went anyway.

French: elle a dit qu'elle n'allait pas aller au parc mais elle a changé d'avis et est allée de toute façon.

When you translate it back you get this:

it said it wasnt going to go to the park but it changed opinion and went in any event.

WTF?

and look at all the unnecessary (') symbols and dodgy e's there are, now thats why english is better.

Now lets look at Arabic:

غير أنّ هو غيّر عقله وذهب مهما كان هو قال لم يذهب هو كان أن يذهب إلى المتنزهة

Translated back:

Nevertheless he other than his brain and gold whatever he was said he does not go was to the park goes to.