From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #59 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, May 21 2003 Volume 02 : Number 059 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:04:39 -0600 From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Ivan Wolfe said... >Maybe this is a cultural thing.=20 .. and then went on to give some good examples from Laotian. I agree. = Using language to define our relationship with God is far from absolute, = and depends largely on how we see the world, and how we use language to = define our role in a world that God has created. We use hundreds of = (corrupted) languages on this planet, but each one seems to have a way of = addressing God in a special way. Speaking another person's language is without question in my opinion the = best way to get completely inside their head and understand how they see = the world (which is why language/ literature and an understanding of world = literature is so vital to any attempt at real cross-cultural negotiations--= it's another reason why return missionaries are so highly regarded in the = State Department). Since I only really speak Thai (my Korean is useless = these days), I'll use my experience with that language to illustrate. =20 What I find fascinating about Thai (and several other Asian languages) is = that you can understand the relationship between two people very specifical= ly by how they talk about themselves. When I address a friend my age, I = use my own name as a personal pronoun. If I'm addressing someone of a = similar age and status to whom I've just been introduced, or if relationshi= ps haven't been firmly established, I might use "we" when referring to = myself. When talking to someone younger I refer to myself using an = untranslatable word that means "older person" (A fascinating aside - if = you need to show that they are important to you, you use this same pronoun = to address them. For example, if I'm in the market and a vendor wants my = business they will address me this way, even if it's obvious I'm younger.) = When I address my parents, or really anyone I perceive as being a close = and intimate parental figure, I can call myself "little mouse." There = are so, so many more... Also, it's interesting that men have a personal pronoun that they can use = in almost every adult situation, similar to "I." There is a corresponding = female pronoun, but it is rarely used in everyday life, and almost sounds = archaic or at least extraordinarily formal when used seriously (I mostly = heard it in Sacrament meeting talks). Sometimes very close friends will = use it in conversation, almost playfully. Or when people, men or women, = are angry and are trying to make a point or be condescending they might = use that pronoun. There's an entire dissertation on how Thais view the = sexes waiting to be written.... But back to the discussion at hand. In Thai there is an entirely separate = set of vocabulary for royalty and for deity. There are royal words for = "hand," "speak," and just about everything else, including personal = pronouns. They are so rarely used these days, that sometimes the = missionaries (who know the vocab from reading scriptures, where they are = used to describe God) sometimes have to teach the vocab to investigators = reading scripture and encountering the royal word for "mouth" for the = first time. When referring to themselves in prayer Thais use an untranslatable = royal-use personal pronoun. I've also noticed that many members call = themselves a stylized version of "child of God." Both are formal, and = both are different from any personal pronouns that you would use in = everyday life situations. This is very reflective of Thai society and = culture as a whole. Some members are wishing for a new translation of the Book of Mormon, one = that doesn't use so much stylized language. Instead of translating the = Book of Mormon into Thai the way Thais speak or read, the translation is = much more of a word for word translation from the English. The only = problem with that is, Thais don't think the same way that English-speakers = do. With investigators, missionaries sometimes have to translate the = meaning of the scripture into more understandable Thai. As more and more = Thais grow up in the Church, understanding the language of the current = BofM translation won't be a problem. But for converts, it can be almost = like learning another dialect. This conflict doesn't have anything to do with personal pronouns, however. = My guess is that even if a new translation is completed, the personal = pronouns will stay the same, because that's how Thais view themelves in = the world. Other grammatical issues and royal-use language might be = updated, but I doubt if the pronouns ever will be. My point? We all address God in special ways that differ from nation to = nation and from person to person. I grew up on KJV language, and that's = how I feel most comfortable when talking to my Heavenly Father. When = praying in English (his second language), my husband uses "you" but when = praying in Thai, he uses royal-use pronouns. The trick is finding what works for you, and respecting what works for = them.... Mary Jane Ungrangsee - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:48:31 -0700 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Thanks -- this is the info I've gotten. I wonder how different this is from "reading" a Readers Digest Condensed Book. My guess is that RD won't cut out entire storylines. I will always opt for the print version of just about anything. On Mon, 19 May 2003 13:32:28 -0600, Christian Sorensen wrote: > A book on tape is only a recitation of the entire book if it's an > unabridged book on tape. M [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:55:06 -0700 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Christian Sorensen wrote: > A book on tape is only a recitation of the entire book if it's an > unabridged book on tape. Many books on tape are not complete > recitations, most often for time considerations. The publisher will > determine how many tapes/CDs they want to produce, and it is then left > to the author (or perhaps editor, depending on the work) to cut the > manuscript down to that word count. Most authors will try to cut > nonessential scenes, but sometimes it may be easiest to simply cut a > storyline. > This is exactly what happened to me when I was with Covenant. My first book came to just over 60,000 words in print, but had to be abridged to around 32,000 to fit on the allotted two tapes. (180 minutes, spoken at approx. 180 words per minute ... or something like that) It was an excruciating process for me, but I eventually made it happen. But with book two, which totaled around 75,000 words, it was just impossible. I trimmed and trimmed, but just couldn't get it down to 32,000 words. I eventually had to eliminate an entire sideline story to make it work. I've always wondered and worried about readers who might READ book three after LISTENING to book two, since there are references in book three to that certain missing storyline. (book three was never available on tape) But I had no choice in the matter. Either I abridged the manuscript to fit the tape requirements, or someone else would do it for me (i.e. my editor). I much preferred to do the abridging myself. UNwriting those two books was just about the hardest writing I've ever done. - -BJ Rowley - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:28:27 -0600 From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare >I wrote "Five-Minute Much Ado" a while ago Cool! also clever. The "eep" made me laugh, which is what a comedy is supposed to do, right? barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:21:29 -0600 From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare At 02:40 AM 5/13/03, you wrote: >Barbara Hume ask about Modernizing Shakespeare. > >Jonathan asks: Anyone up to the challenge? > >Probably not, but here goes for grins: > > >We've just come through a time that sucked. It was like a cold day in >hell. Very clever! Very entertaining! And very good at serving its purpose--sending me running back to the original Bard, whose lines I can understand much more readily! barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #59 *****************************