If you're seeing this, you're deliberately surfing with CSS off (as I've been known to do), or you're using an old browser (in which case you might consider upgrading your browser.)

Thursday, April 3, 2008

In memory of Janet Kagan, I quickly re-read Hellspark recently. I liked it better than the first time I read it, perhaps because I've been very much in the mood for books about the joys of figuring things out. I wouldn't say that this was as good as the Steerswoman series, but it scratches a lot of the same itch.

The book is juggling more threads than I remembered, and as a result the pacing is occasionally odd. But the characters (and, I admit, being in quick-read mode) pulled me through. And I was delighted to serendipitously discover the existence of Earth languages in which the evidentiary basis of a statement is an intrinsic part of the grammar—instead of reducing my admiration at Kagan's invention, it just increases my overall sense-of-wonder. Language is so cool.


Comments:

#1 :: David Tate wrote on April 7, 2008 at 12:27 PM:

R.I.P., Ms Kagan. Two or three gems beats a boatload of mediocrity.

Kate, do you have a citation for discussion of natural languages that include evidentiary status in the grammar? I'd be very interested to see that.

David


#2 :: Kate wrote on April 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM:

It came up in a lecture I was listening to. The phrase I remember is "evidential markers," which leads me to the Wiki article on evidentiality, which may or may not be a place to start.


#3 :: David Tate wrote on April 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM:

Excellent! Thanks, Kate. "Evidentiary" only got me legal discussions :-).


Subscribe to comments on this post: RSS feed


Post a comment:




(HTML permitted for links and formatting):

Remember Me?


« Pierce, Tamora: (210) Melting Stones (audio) | Main | Williams, Walter Jon: Crown Jewels, The; House... »


Main
About
ROT-13

Change Page Style

Search: (advanced)

Browse:

By Category:

By Recent Comments:

By Entry: Random, All

By Date (text list):

Syndicate: