It could be that no one understands the literary criticism, even if they read it. The panel shows a student listening to Cueball. A fun, alternative explanation is that Cueball has found his real niche! A natural genius in literary criticism! (I know that's not what he's driving at. Stick with my first explanation.)Theo (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I know this is easy to find, but the wikipedia article on deconstruction is very relevant. There should be a link in the explanation. 22.214.171.124 01:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe the multiple issues listed in the Deconstruction Wikipedia article speak for themselves:
- This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
- This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. (February 2014)
- This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. (February 2014)
- This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (February 2014)
- This article's introduction may be too long for the overall article length. (February 2014)
- This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (February 2014)
- The neutrality of this article is disputed. (February 2014)
126.96.36.199 20:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that, on the literary criticism explanation, Randall wrote "Eight papers and two books and they haven't caught on" to mean that he talked about eight papers and two books, not that he has already had a literary criticism writing career consisting of eight written papers and two books and no one has noticed. 188.8.131.52 04:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. A 'paper' usually means an academic paper, not literary work. Then, the books part follows suit. --NeatNit (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could also be a reference to the Sokal Hoax...implying he did the same thing over and over but without the "reveal." 184.108.40.206 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Given the "Eight papers and two books" that the narrator has written on literary criticism, could this actually be talking about impostor syndrome, where the author believes that they're frauds and that they're not as good as people think they are, but in actual fact are knowledgable in their field? --Sophira (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I find the claim "Since Klingon is a constructed language, designed to sound "alien" and to avoid sounding like any human language, it cannot be part of any real linguistic family."- specifically the "since it's constructed, it can't belong to a real language family"- to be rather dubious. Now, full disclosure, I have absolutely no formal education in Linguistics- the closest is that I'm in my first year of learning German- but there's no reason a conlang can't belong to a language family.
- Anglish, English's form of linguistic purism that aims to remove all foreign influences (or at least romance influences) from the language is arcane and distinct enough from normal English to the degree that it can be considered a separate language almost (about the same difference as between English and Scots). Anglish is pretty obviously constructed (a lot of vocabulary was mangled together to talk about modern concepts that didn't exist prior to foreign influences), but it's not a stretch to say it belongs to the Germanic language family.
- Esperanto is probably the world's most famous Conlang, but it was greatly influenced by the author's experience with language. It takes its grammar from Slavic languages and its vocabulary from Germanic and Romance languages; while it might not be an obvious member of any language family, I wouldn't call it a stretch to classify it in one (or more!) based on its influences.
- The biggest issue is that "real language family" is a dubious term- a group of related-but-distinct conlangs could be said to belong to the same language family, and it would be a real language family- if they're real languages, they form a real family.
Now, the given example of Klingon probably doesn't belong to any earthly families since it was meant to be alien, but the cause-and-effect statement is just a little fishy. Hppavilion1 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Membership in a language family is based on common descent, not a featural analysis. As such, Esperanto absolutely cannot be classified as Germanic, Romance or Slavic, even if it is in large part a relexified version of its creator's native dialect of Polish. That said, you're correct that there's no reason a conlang couldn't be part of a language family. For one, if I use a reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and derive a language from it by applying sound changes, what I've made is both a conlang and an Indo-European language. For another, if I create a language and then derive daughter languages from it by applying sound changes, that's an entire family of conlangs. (Klingon doesn't have such a language family, as it happens, but Marc Okrand has written about some dialectal variations.) 220.127.116.11 06:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)