Government language study released (fwd)

[MiaKalish@LFP]

You know Susan, you bring up a really good point. Since we are in semester
break, perhaps people have time.

Is Patience the right way to deal with these issues?

Here's "my" logic, which is to say, this is how I am evaluating things, Not:
This is the way everyone should a) see it; b) do it.

    1. I have a limited amount of time;
    2. Correspondlingly, I have a limited amount of money;
    3. Elders are dying more quickly than I can research, design, and build
good technology;
    4. Hundreds of languages die every year;
    5. Much of the dialog in Tribes that I have been exposed to is based ed
on the premise that those of us who are
        trying to help a) want something that we haven't yet disclosed, that
is, we are trying to get over on them so we
        will get vast fortunes, none of which will acrue to them; and, b)
because we are waiting for such a huge reward,
        we will wait.
    6. All the time I was "patient", I didn't make much progress. It was
only when I got fed up and went away that things started to get better. Of
course, I don't know if the Tribe will be successful in saving language and
culture, but at least I will be able to do things that will be of value to
others who are interested.

Others?
Mia




----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Penfield" <sdp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU>
To: <ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: Government language study released (fwd)


> Can't resist this thread.
>
> Tribal politics is always a process, often a hassle and occasionally an
> obstacle ---Does that strike a middle ground here?  I'd say both
'insiders'
> and 'outsiders' would  agree with that---has nothing to do with
> 'retrofitting'. An understanding of tribal politics is essential since it
> defines the space and parameters for negotiations. But, blanket
> characterizations of tribal politics either way, while tempting, are not
> fair.
>  Probably goes without saying, but let's not forget that each community is
> different, as is each person's and program's involvement with tribal
> politics. I'll agree with Sean in that providing practical, very usable,
> results mitigates much of the tension in most situations. Nevertheless,
> sincere commitment and practical results are only usually, not always, a
> winning combination.
> In any case,  tribal politics are always to be considered and respected.
>
> Patience everyone! Isn't that the great lesson of working with community
> level programs or politics?
>
> Susan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean M. Burke" <sburke at CPAN.ORG>
> To: <ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 2:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Government language study released (fwd)
>
>
> > At 10:53 PM 2004-12-17, Rolland Nadjiwon wrote:
> >>What if you are working with a language that has no(your last paragraph)
> >>pronouns, genderization, binarism or linearity(time/history)...do you
> >>invent them?
> >
> > What do /you/ think?  I was talking about (largely uninflected) nouns
and
> > (highly inflected) verbs in Apachean, a distinction that I think is
about
> > as uncontroversial as they get -- if that bothers you, explain why.
> > For chrissake, I wasn't insisting that Your Favorite Language has an
> > ablative absolutive!
> >
> >>Further, 'tribal politics' is not an obstacle it is a process, an
> >>'obstacle' perhaps to externalized retrofitting retrofitters.
> >
> > Oh my yes, when the head of the culture program /still/ won't talk to
the
> > head of the language program because her sister Orlene asked his
> > teasing-cousin Bulerd to the prom in 1952 instead of asking /him/, I'll
be
> > sure to bear in mind your heartfelt advice that this is all just a
joyous
> > process, and that to view it otherwise is to be a retrofitty retrofitso.
> >
> > Who needs a hug?!?
> >
> > --
> > Sean M. Burke    http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/
>
>