Monday, January 30, 2012

My Forgotten Universe

I was so happy about the success of my science fiction book club that I rented some more episodes of The Big Bang Theory. As I was watching, the Asimovian currents continued to percolate in my brain, along with a recurrent nagging born from a lecture I attended at the Commonwealth Club. Then I remembered I had written three stories in what is generally referred to the Teylothia Universe inside my head - I have several now, all structurally different, including the Haven Universe (one finished story, one fragment), the Semiramis Universe (two finished stories, several fragments), and the Fortunate Islands Universe (no stories per se, but instead one two-and-a-half-years post-by-post world-changing adventure on CONCULTURE).  I went to one of my drawers and removed a translucent blue folder that contained my Branson Senior Project and related material in 1994. Three of the stories were in the TU, although the set was different from that which I remembered. Certainly, In His Own Land, set on the namesake O'Neill colony, was there (the colonies of the 'verse were based on '70s science fiction). The second story, X, set on the Teylothia's fellow Hadean (NB: in-universe term) colony of Telebios, was there also. The third story was not the twenty-page fragment  (all political dialogue - perhaps I'd been reading Dune) set on Pluto, that I had thought.  It was a post-by-post story, Third's the Charmer , written on VEBLEN, set on yet another Hadean colony (Telemachus), featuring an murder charge against a member of a yet another colony (Telephorus). Given the set up of the colony ring structure, that leaves me with two options for the last corner of the hexagon: another O'Neill colony with a name starting with Tele- or the dwarf planet system of Orcus and Vanth. I'm tempted to "complete the set" and leave Orcus-orbit for a different theme. It would be easy to expand the 'verse to include the new dwarf planets in a natural fashion, but I still have one colony space left in Pluto orbit before I need to expand.

So far I have only skimmed the stories. I need to re-read them for several reasons. I need to examine the style. Although I have a timeline for In His Own Land, I need to prepare a rough timeline/summary of events. It really is a 'verse, so the interactions are significant, and my original notes are long gone. I also need to brush up on the technological terms and "current" social structure of the 'verse - I haven't calculated it precisely, but a cursory glance at birth dates and vaguely expressed ages suggests that Third's the Charmer occurs almost a century after the events of In His Own Land.

There were two other stories in the packet, Cogito and Those Who Wait. Cogito is a hologram story (written before Voyager aired), and might fit well with one possible development of the Teylothia Universe. It would be a dark development, but then the whole 'verse seems to lean that way - so far there have been incidents of suicide, fanaticism, murder charges, and botched experiments, and mentions of vandalism, promiscuity, and potential political unrest. Enjisi, the protagonist (and I remember Mrs. Moore disputing the term) of Those Who Wait, are on a wholly different scale, and may a different 'verse altogether. She (Enjisi, not Mrs. Moore) may require a different tack.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Calvinist Confession

I relented and read the latest Robot book authorized by the Asimov estate - although its presence on the Mechanics Institute Library new acquistions shelf might have been a factor. I, Robot: to protect is the first in a trilogy featuring Susan Calvin. This volume's author is Mickey Zucker Reichert (I do not know if the plan is similar to the Foundation series additions, in which each volume had a separate author). Prequels in particular activate my skepticism gland, since predetermination can sap the suspense from a story, or even worse, make additions that violate the ethos of the pre-existing corpus (I'm looking at you, midi-chlorians!).

In this case, however, the plot and background feel like a much-needed updating of Asimovian history of robotics - he admitted and rued many of the errors in conception that he made before the invention of the computer field. The reset of the timeline does not bother me - there is a little-known timeline in Let's Buy Jupiter and Other Stories, an admittedly pale imitation of Heinlein's Future History, which featured a Solar System-centricity and the presence of numerous alien species, and is thus fundamentally incompatible with the Robot-Empire-Foundation universe established later. Compared to that contrast, the change of chronology in I, Robot: to protect is a soft reset, even if it demolishes my favorite conceit that Susan Calvin (b. 1984) is in my same age set and intellectual impi. The temporal reset unfortunately will not discourage some fans from trying to shoehorn the new timeline into the Robot-Empire-Foundation series. I, on the other hand, regard it as a new timeline.

I do not reach these conclusion on Calvin's birthdate alone. The modus operandi of to protect seems to be incorporate and tighten the various strands of the original stories as much as possible, as reboots of a franchise often do. Susan lives with her father, John Calvin (an Asimovian joke indeed), a roboticist at U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men, who bears a resemblance in his eating habits to Stephen Byerley. Susan already possesses the waspish tongue that was one of her first character traits. She is, of course, plain, but no so much that all men overlook her. The Society for Humanity is present and performing its dramatic function as an all-purpose extreme protest group. The original profession of Susan is psychologist, which is a logical ex post facto  extrapolation, but the hospital in which she works contains several threads from the short stories. The nanobots (did Asimov coin that term too?) are deployed differently than poor Mike the nanobot, and Nate the hospital robot seems to fulfill the role of romantic rival and enabler of Susan's (as yet) mild robophilia, more Herbie than Lenny. Even Susan's interest in the oppositie sex has precedent in the short stories, although there it remained unrequited.

Most of the action in to protect establishes Susan's intelligence and personality, and creates a mystery of nanorobot and human interaction for following volumes. Reichardt, thankfully, writes dialogues that is a little less flat than Asimov - in short stories, Asimov's prose works well, but it becomes tedious in longer works (such as Robots and Empire). In short, it accomplishes the fundamental tasks of the intial volume of a trilogy: establish the main character, the main conflict or mystery, and entice the reader to return.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Hawaiian Grammar Review, Part 2


Judd's pseudo-Latin approach leads him to construct a table pronominal declensions. This table is limited to the singular; at this point I can only speculate that the duals and plurals do not have “cases.” Judd might have said that the dual and plural forms in all “cases” are identical, congruent with the nineteenth century belief that English was a marginal case language because the pronouns distinguish subject, object, and possessive.



First Singular Second Singular Third Singular
Nominative owau
au
oe oia
ia
Genitive a'u
o'u
au
ou
ana
ona
Possessive ka'u
ko'u
kuu
kau
kou
kana
kona
Dative na'u
no'u
nau
nou
nana
nona
Accusative ia'u
io'u nei/la
ia oe
i ou nei/la
ia ia
i ona la
Ablative 1 (Agent/Means) ma o'u nei/la ma ou nei/la ma ona nei/la
Ablative 2
(Separation)
mai o'u aku/mai mai ou aku/mai mai ona aku/mai
Ablative 3 (Accompaniment) me au me oe me ia
Ablative 4
(Agent with Passive Verb)
e au e oe e ia

The Genitive, Possessive, Dative, and Accusative cases are conflations of the simple prepositions a/o, ka/ko, and na/no with a following pronoun, with the exception of the 'affectionate' possessive first singular form kuu. The alienable/inalienable distinction percolates through these forms. The separation of Genitive and Possessive is a marginal but understandable feature of Indo-European languages (my/mine, vester/vestri/vobis). The surprising feature is the four types of ablative, since the first two types are merely a simple preposition plus an alienable Genitive, and the last two are a simple preposition plus the nominative form (nei and la, aku and mai are particles called directionals, and are not limited to these pronominal structures).


Prepositions, in all languages have both simple and compound forms. The compound forms in Hawaiian have this structure: ma/i- + a grammaticalized noun + o (the alienable genitive). This structure is, in essence, no difference from the English compound preposition because of, which is derived transparently from the phrase be the cause of. The diminution of the locative forms from three to two is not surprising, since the Ablative (mai) is always the first to be sacrificed on the altar of Simplicity. The usual choice of o rather than a as the connecting preposition is logical; if an object (e.g., a spearhead) that is inside you must be specified to be inside you, it is probably not an inherent part of your body! If it is an inherent part of your body, you could just use a possessive. Thus, Ke ike nei au i ka pahi maloko o ka maka a ke kanaka, "I see the knife in the eye of the man," in which the knife does not belong in the eye, but the eye is an intrinsic part of the man.

The article in Hawaiian has two allophones (variants), ka and ke. The determination of which one to use differs in Judd from modern sources, but that could be the result of local variation; the differences have never caused me any problems in identifying the article. I have laid out Judd's distribution below, in which # indicates the beginning of the noun, and C indicates that a noun begins with a consonant (except k or p), which receive their own entries. Most entries in the first column use only one form, although three use both, either for euphony or semantic distinction.



Ka Ke
#a x x
#e x

#i x

#o x x
#u x

#C x

#k

x
#p x x


Hawaiian articles come in three flavors: definite (the), semi-definite (a certain, some), and indefinite (a).These articles have only two grammatical numbers, singular and plural. Do you notice that something is missing? In languages with dual number (such as Greek and Hebrew), the dual is often absent outside of the pronominal system and the plural provides for singular and dual. The definite singular articles, ka and ke, you have already met. The definite plural is na, which occurs the name Na Pali, the Cliffs, a particularly scenic royal preserve on Kaua'i.
The semi-definite plurals are kekahi, kahi, hookahi, and wahi. All of these forms are based on the increasing compound of wahi. One of the compound prepositions is kahi, "there where," a conflation of ka wahi. kekahi prefixes the definite article, while hookahi adds a primarily verbal prefix.
The indefinite singular article is he; there are four different indefinite plural articles, the distinctions of which Judd does not describe, consistent with his purpose of instilling basic comprehension of the language. They must have different connotations, however, because the example sentences use a variety, both alone and in combination.




Singular Plural
Definite ka
ke
na
Semi-Definite kekahi
kahi
hookahi
wahi


Indefinite he mau
poe
pae
puu



Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Hawaiian Grammar Review, Part 1

In anticipation of my upcoming trip to Hawaii, I powered through the chapters of Judd's Hawaiian Grammar up to the point where I stopped last time. If I were planning to speak Hawaiian, I would not have done so and would have switched to some modern online course; my interest, however, is more grammatical and historical, and in the historical records the macron is manqué and the 'okina is optional. Judd will serve my purpose well.

Here is what I have done: I have summarized the grammatical information of the first fourteen lessons in sensible chunks.

First, the pronouns. There are three grammatical numbers (singular, dual, plural), three grammatical persons (first, second, third), and two degrees of clusivity (inclusive, exclusive). I have concocted some tricks to remember the pronominal distinctions. The plurals all end in -kou; the duals except olua (2nd person dual) end in -aua. What about clusivity? An inclusive first person pronoun includes the addressee, whereas an exclusive one excludes the addressee. The easiest way to remember the difference in Hawaiian is that the exclusive pronouns begin with m- for 'me', since the function of the exclusive pronoun is to remind the addressee that he is not part of this 'we'.

Secondly, the verbal structure so far. The pseudo-Latin analysis rings false, but I wonder how much of that analysis was born of ignorance, and how much of convenience. The indicative present is formed by ke V nei N, where V is the verb and N is a noun or pronoun; thus ke hana nei au means "I work" The indicative past is formed by i V N: i hana au, "I worked." The indicative perfect is formed by ua V N: ua hana au, "I have worked". The indicative pluperfect tense is formed by ua V e N: ua hana e au, "I had worked." The indicative future tense is formed by e V au: e hana au, "I will work."

Thirdly, the prepositions. Given the Verb-Subject-Object structure of Hawaiian, prepositions are expected. There is a three-way distinction in the locative prepositions: mai, "from", ma, "at", and i, "towards." The preposition i also functions as a direct object marker. me means both "with" and "and". e is the preposition used for the agent of a passive verb (I suspect that this is a misreading of ergativity, but I have chosen my sourcebook). The remaining prepositions, a/o, ka/ko, and na/no, have alternating forms depending on alienability. a indicates inalienability, o alienability; thus kana papale means "her hat (made by her)", an origin which cannot be changed, but kona papale means "her hat (purchased by her)", a condition which could change if she decided to sell the hat or give it to her friend as a present.

The substantial 'declension' table for singular pronouns, compound prepositions, and the difficulties of articular allophony are subjects for Part 2 of this review.







Monday, January 9, 2012

Calvinist Psychology

I have been rereading The Rest of the Robots (a combination of I, Robot and Robot Visions), the authoritative volume of Asimov's robot stories with which I fell in love as a young nerd - I did choose I, Robot for my own book club, after all. I ignore the robot-themed boos not written by Asimov rather than angrily reject them, as so many fans do and thus set back the reputations of science fiction fans everywhere. I also recently read Science Fiction: What It's All About by Sam J. Lundwall, which I bought in early December from a peddlar in the Mission. While it was interesting to read about works which I consider classics described as new and exciting works, its primary contribution to this post is its characterization of golden age science fiction and golden age science fiction fans. I have read many criticisms of Asimov, some undeserved, including his inability to write women. I do not dispute the truth of this assertion, but he did write around his deficiencies. I could not avoid thinking about this while reading The Rest of Robots, in which Susan Calvin features prominently. When I was a boy, I read the stories as straightforward problem narratives, but this rereading revealed a different angle. Asimov's Calvin is not so much a portrayal of a woman as the portrayal of a computer geek (something of which Asimov could have had no knowledge). Calvin resembled no female nerd I've ever met, but her obsession with technology and her disdain for lesser human beings (in her case, the entire human race) matches the profile the more obnoxious hyperintelligent male nerds I have met. Calvin is the Other, not the Lady.

Since I composed the preceding paragraph, I have learned about a new authorized trilogy featuring Susan Calvin. Ordinarily, I refuse to read books not written by the original demiurge - I made an exception for the later Dune books because Brian Herbert had been his father's co-conspirator in designing the Dune universe. The post-mortem Foundation books interested me not at all, and the off-planet Robot books were not interesting because I already ranked books such as Robots of Dawn and Robots and Empire low on my Asimov list. I like the simplicity of the robot stories. This new trilogy (of which only the first, I, Robot: To Protect, is out) is tempting, since Calvin is the only remotely fleshed-out character in the Asimovian canon. The other reason, which may well be dashed is this: I want to see how Calvin becomes who she is in the classic canon, just as I had high hopes for Episodes I-III.

ROILAing in the Grave

Originally written 1/9/12

So I bought a copy of Learn ROILA. ROILA stands for Robot Interaction Language, a strange marriage between the goals of Lojban and the syntax of Toki Pona, which is intended as a means of communication between robots and humans. It is allegedly simple enough for humans to learn and clear enough for robots to understand. Since I do not own a robot, I cannot speak about the mechanical end. Thus my comments will be limited to the human side.

The vocabulary generation is atypical of a constructed language, the opposite of the oligosynthetic end of the conlang scale. The method of vocabulary generation ensures maximal distinction of words, but results in atypically long function words and semantic and phonological disconnections.

The vocalic phonology is a little odd. The choice of a five-vowel system is not extraordinary, but the specific pronunciations of the vowels (and this is not a language that favors allophony!) are not as spread out as a 'normal' vowel set. A human can manage it perfectly well, but the distribution is maximized for robotic visual perception. An examination of the consonantal phonology bears this out, since the inventory is heavily weighted towards the labial/labiodental column, which is the most visible point of articulation.

The use of 'tuji' as a plural marker, intensifier, and 'many' suprised me. One of the things I do not like about Toki Pona is the polysemy of the word 'mute' (many) for these meanings. In the case of Toki Pona, the paucity of the vocabulary excuses this polysemy, but one would expect greater clarity from a language designed for machines that need precise instructions.

What especially shocked me was the near-homophony of the markers for past and present tense. 'Pito make jifi lakowo' means 'I saw the cat', and 'Pito make jifo lakowo' means 'I will see the cat.' 'Pito make lakowo', without any tense marker, means 'I see the cat'. Given that one of the frequently mentioned faults of Esperanto is the similarity of the past, present, and future markers on the verbs. This is not only a problem for the eterna komencanto, but for fluent Esperantists; otherwise, why would fluent Esperantists abbreviate the past/present/future forms estis/estas/estos , with accent on the e, to stis/stas/stos, with accent on the i? I am sure this critique arose during the creation of ROILA, and that the creators have good reason for not removing it.



Monday, January 2, 2012

The Kim Is Dead! Long Live the Kim!

With the passing of Kim Jong-Il, his son Kim Jong-Un is now the leader of North Korea. His uncle-in-law Chang Sung-taek seems to be a guiding light to the young Kim. (Korean names are a wonderful illustration of the effect of generations of surnames, but at the same time often inconvenient to Western clarity). Kim Jong-Il invested his power in the military, especially after the famine of the '80's, and the military will determine the survival of the Kim Jong-Un regime. It is noticeable that even in a land that started as a socialist state and touts women soldiers, a distaff member of the royal family is not considered worthy of the throne. Caesar and the Praetorian guard are now locked in a holding pattern. The only good I can imagine arising from the stalemate of the elite while the peasants starve is that, when the country opens decades from now, the world will understand what a true scavenging society looks like and prepare for a global future of desperation.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Water, Water Everywhere and Not A Drop To Drink

I rarely read the New York Time, but on the last day of 2011 something drove me to glance to the right upon entering the coffee shop across the street. On the lower right corner, there was an article on fracking in South Aftica. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of using lubrication and pressure to reach previously unreachable oil reserves. If the process is artificially stimulated, there is a risk of permanently contaminating the water supply and sterilizing the land. (I shall resist the temptation to use sexual metaphors to describe the process). The region of South Africa in which American multimationals wish to engage in this practice is the Karoo Desert, the very name of which ('thirsty land') indicates the scarcity of water. The quoted opponent of the fracking, Chris Hayward, is from Beaufort West, and only recently had to slaughter 600 of his 2000 sheep for lack of water. Although I do take an occasional interest in South Africa, the explicit naming of a South African ordinarily would not elicit such a response, much less a blog post. The only son of a South African sheep farmer in the Karoo I have ever met, however, is named Stuart Hayward, a contributor to the South African-themed blog Southernwrite.




How did I meet a shepherd's son? It was a winter, quite a while ago, up in the Sierra Nevada mountains, which this year also lacked the requisite amount of winter water. We were on our way to a ski resort, and all along the road there were young employees from the other hemisphere seeking a ride to work. The long-standing dispute of the wisdom of picking up hitchikers was not an issue, and the young man came into our car. Thus began an association that continues to this day.



Now we ought to return to the Karoo and its dry environs. Water, especially fresh water, is limited throughout the world, as is oil. Human beings, however, cannot drink oil. Although this time the ones who will suffer in Africa are white rather than black, it is the American companies who stand to profit and the locals who stand to suffer. This is the human condition: even the quarrel of Agamemnon and Achilles brought suffering and death to the ordinary soldiers. Another unfortunate psychological flaw of humanity is the sacrifice of long-term prosperity in exchange for short-term gain. The most egregious example I have seen lately (taken from the same article) is Indonesia's willingness to drill into an active mud volcano where the last attempt displaced 30,000 people. I do not know where the march of the thirty thousand went after their villages were destroyed, but surely it exacerbated some other domestic issue.



The combination of too many people and too few renewable resources will lead within the next fifty years to resource wars. Since the human race seems reluctant to decrease its numbers in a peaceful manner, we will need all the resources we can preserve. Corporate greed, particularly the unsustainable model of eternal capitalism, threatens the long-term survival of many of our species by poisoning the environment, but that's a post for another day