devilyoudont:
Weak formulations of the hypothesis are not so clearly incorrect when applied to English

I think that Suzette meant for it to be an experiment with regard to the weak formulation; I remember her saying that the more strong version would be incorrect. But I don't know much about these sorts of theories, so it's hard for me to really speak about it in depth. There were a few theories she had in mind when first creating it, though.

And the language itself was meant as an experiment - one that she asserts "failed". I think the core idea is being able to express yourself better. From seeing some interviews, it definitely sounds like a product of the 70s (the "I'm cold" / "Oh no you aren't" write-off is really only something I hear from my parents; my peers don't really doubt my personal perceptions like that, haha.)

But, I do think that, to some extent, "feminine language" is written off as unimportant, frivilous. (I have a book by Robin Lakoff that talks about this, but it also is a product of the 70s), so in a way, I can see how language to describe emotion could possibly be somewhat surpressed in our culture.

I personally prefer to not think of people in terms of their biology, including how they think and express themselves. I agree with you there. I don't really disagree with anything you've said.

I do think that Láadan is a fun experiment, though. Some of the features it does have I find really interesting, and it has me thinking more about my daily use of language and how I might express things differently if I had some terms, affixes, and ideas available to me.

Sometimes I do feel like I am at a loss for words on how to express myself, and it would be nice to say something to the extent of, "I feel that I am tired / I need to be alone for neutral reasons / I am speaking independently of you / You've done nothing wrong", or have a term for "To claim that the other person should not perceive the feelings that they do, because you perceive your own hardships to be greater than theirs" (I guess generally this is called "one-upping" in English).

Finally, it kind of fills the hole that Esperanto leaves; I enjoy that it is not European-based, I like that it doesn't have its own unique character set, just accent marks used in other languages (good for translating software more easily), I like that the third person pronoun is totally neutral (but I dislike the -id suffix). And, in my mind, a bonus perk is that, since it's labelled as a Feminist Language, it is more likely to appeal to a certain set of people, and dissuade certain others. ;P

Moosader:

But, I do think that, to some extent, "feminine language" is written off as unimportant, frivilous. (I have a book by Robin Lakoff that talks about this, but it also is a product of the 70s), so in a way, I can see how language to describe emotion could possibly be somewhat surpressed in our culture.

... in my mind, a bonus perk is that, since it's labelled as a Feminist Language, it is more likely to appeal to a certain set of people, and dissuade certain others. ;P

This is quite baffling. It seems to me that almost every language has advanced with the express aim of trying to convey meaning and feeling; including, to a great extent, emotions. The claim that e.g English removes that possibility from women - rather than this being possible cultural restrictions placed upon expression - seems to me a very bogus claim indeed. Suppression of expression of emotion is not a feminist problem in particular.

I assume the last part quoted is partly jest, but it does betray the mindset of exclusion that lurks behind the façade of inclusion put up by amateur feminist discourse.

Wow, dismissive much?

Alkanadi:

Tempodivalse: Ha! Swedish "ni" and "vi" are, I hear, the opposite of their Esperanto meanings. Must be real frustrating

OMG. I think that would drive me crazy.

I wonder if that has anything to do with what Bertilo (the swedish creator of PMEG) said during a Duolingo AMA (Ask Me Anytthing) chat: “Mi estis freneza tiutempe (eble ankoraŭ...)”. Hmm...

erinja:Wow, dismissive much?

Entirely in this case.

Now, why did I suspect after I read the first post that this thread would quickly turn into a feminist-bashing exercise.

You don't like feminism; we get that. Can we move on?

I think that a general suspicion made by Ladaan's author is true - namely, that certain kinds of emotional experiences are difficult to convey neatly in normal language (and not just English). If you've ever seen a philosophy paper on phenomenology you'll see what I mean. The language used is necessarily long-winded and obtuse in order to avoid ambiguity. Being able to differentiate between subtle experiential categories with just a simple grammatical marker could be quite interesting (e.g., objective claim vs subjective claim). It forms a kind of metalanguage.

Vestitor:

Moosader:

... in my mind, a bonus perk is that, since it's labelled as a Feminist Language, it is more likely to appeal to a certain set of people, and dissuade certain others. ;P

I assume the last part quoted is partly jest, but it does betray the mindset of exclusion that lurks behind the façade of inclusion put up by amateur feminist discourse.

It sounds like a joke, but it really isn't. My hope is that, for those learning Láadan, they're going to be more open minded about women's and LGBTQIAA issues. ;P

I feel like the people who would be interested in learning Láadan, understand concepts like sexism more, and are going to be less likely to write off other Láadan speakers as "only complaining for the sake of complaining" - something that does happen in Esperantujo.

I don't mean that the community will be perfect - none are - but I think it will a less stressful community to be a part of, for me personally.

Tempodivalse:Now, why did I suspect after I read the first post that this thread would quickly turn into a feminist-bashing exercise.

You don't like feminism; we get that. Can we move on?

You're entirely misguided. I'm not anti-feminist at all. Just anti-quackery.

Tempodivalse:I think that a general suspicion made by Ladaan's author is true - namely, that certain kinds of emotional experiences are difficult to convey neatly in normal language (and not just English). If you've ever seen a philosophy paper on phenomenology you'll see what I mean. The language used is necessarily long-winded and obtuse in order to avoid ambiguity. Being able to differentiate between subtle experiential categories with just a simple grammatical marker could be quite interesting (e.g., objective claim vs subjective claim). It forms a kind of metalanguage.

My undergraduate thesis (rather foolishly I think now) was on Heidegger and Levine. I'm very conversant with these kinds of problems. These days I'm far less sympathetic to Heidegger.

The thing about quackery is -- who cares?

If someone has a silly hypothesis and wants to test it by writing a language, who really cares? And why waste your breath on it?

I don't agree that women somehow have more difficulty than men with expressing emotions in standard language but that also doesn't mean that it's worthless to experiment with a language that allows you to mark expressions as to level of factuality (seems like a political debate in this language could be really interesting!).

I have never heard such harsh words for people experimenting with loglan/lojban or volapuk. If you think someone is involved in something that you think is silly, the polite thing to do is to ignore it and go find another thread to post on.

erinja:The thing about quackery is -- who cares?

I do. I'm sure other people do as well, though I know it's unfashionable to say so.

erinja:If you think someone is involved in something that you think is silly, the polite thing to do is to ignore it and go find another thread to post on.

I think you're quite wrong about this. It's not about politeness or impoliteness, it's about disagreeing with something. The position you're adopting is like when unpleasant things are shown on television and any critical remarks are met with an avalanche of: 'well there's an off button..!' or 'you can switch over..!' Implying that any disagreement should remain unspoken. Why? What's so sacred about certain strains of feminist thought that means I can't criticise it?