NationStates Jolt Archive

Linguists alarmed at the inceasing extinction of many indigenous languages identified five global "hot spots" on Tuesday where the problem is worst, led by northern Australia and a region of South America.

The linguists are part of the Enduring Voices project that seeks to document and revitalize languages slipping toward oblivion, often spoken by indigenous peoples like Australia's aborigines whose cultures were trampled by settlers.

David Harrison of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, the project's co-director, said there are 6,992 recognized distinct languages worldwide. He said on average one language vanishes every two weeks, often as its last elderly speakers perish.

The project, backed by National Geographic magazine, named the region of northern Australia that includes Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia as the place where local languages are most threatened. The linguists said aboriginal Australia harbors some of the most endangered languages, with 153 different ones spoken in this region.

[...] [Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Canada, the United States and Russia also have a number of endangered languages.]

"We're going to lose an immense storehouse of knowledge," Harrison added, noting for example that valuable information accumulated over centuries about various living species exists in languages of native peoples.

Many languages have no written form, meaning that they are lost forever when their last speaker dies, Harrison said.

[...] Over the years, some languages have been deliberately exterminated by colonizers or aggressors taking over territory or waging genocide, the linguists said.

Children now often decide a language's fate, Harrison said, by abandoning an ancestral tongue for another language they see as more widely used, for example, on television or in school.

The linguists with the Enduring Voices project have been traveling to interview the last speakers of certain languages.

"We'll start with a basic 100- or 200-word list. And then we'll go over each word with them again to make sure that we're transcribing it correctly, and try to repeat it to them," Anderson said.

"And usually they'll burst out laughing at that point because we have hideously mispronounced it ... or make some word that sounds obscene to them. ... I did that in Australia, I'm afraid," Anderson added.


(link (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1842185920070918))

I remember reading a few years back about a language in Vanuatu that had only one remaining speaker. He or she may well be dead by now. In Brazil, there are only 6 members of the Akuntsu people and 3 members of the Kanoê still alive today. Many others were massacred by cattle ranchers in the 1970s & 80s. (http://www.survival-international.org/tribes/akuntsu) I don't know whether they even still speak their native languages.

More incongruously, quite recently I read in passing about some language in South America that had only one surviving speaker - not a human being, but a parrot! Its keepers explained that it had previously belonged to speakers of a now extinct language.

Is there no international organisation trying to preserve information about these languages before they disappear?

And...? What are you asking of us?

I have never really understood why people are so insistent on preserving dying languages. What exactly is there that you can really do to stop them from dying at any rate? The only thing I can think of is saving a few dictionaries, and have someone with a lot of time on his hands record every single word in that language, but to do so for 6,000-odd languages would take an inordinate amount of resources that I doubt many would be willing or able to commit. But then, if some of these languages have no written form, what knowledge exactly are we losing that we wouldn't lose by said people dying anyway?

And even then, dead languages need not necessarily die - Ancient Egyptian, for example, has been documented extensively in recent centuries, despite nobody speaking it any more.

At the end of the day, putting aside sentiment, language is all about communicating with other people. And what is the point of a language that nobody else can understand?

I don't see any need to prevent a language from dying out but I do think it is important to record information about them. With analysis language can tell us a great deal about history and migration of people.

I have never really understood why people are so insistent on preserving dying languages. What exactly is there that you can really do to stop them from dying at any rate? The only thing I can think of is saving a few dictionaries, and have someone with a lot of time on his hands record every single word in that language, but to do so for 6,000-odd languages would take an inordinate amount of resources that I doubt many would be willing or able to commit. But then, if some of these languages have no written form, what knowledge exactly are we losing that we wouldn't lose by said people dying anyway?

And even then, dead languages need not necessarily die - Ancient Egyptian, for example, has been documented extensively in recent centuries, despite nobody speaking it any more.

At the end of the day, putting aside sentiment, language is all about communicating with other people. And what is the point of a language that nobody else can understand?

I have never really understood why people are so insistent on preserving dying languages. What exactly is there that you can really do to stop them from dying at any rate? The only thing I can think of is saving a few dictionaries, and have someone with a lot of time on his hands record every single word in that language, but to do so for 6,000-odd languages would take an inordinate amount of resources that I doubt many would be willing or able to commit. But then, if some of these languages have no written form, what knowledge exactly are we losing that we wouldn't lose by said people dying anyway?

And even then, dead languages need not necessarily die - Ancient Egyptian, for example, has been documented extensively in recent centuries, despite nobody speaking it any more.

At the end of the day, putting aside sentiment, language is all about communicating with other people. And what is the point of a language that nobody else can understand?

I do agree with you, sorta. The thing is that when a language dies, then some of our history also does. Besides shouldn't we be preserving as much knowledge as we can?

At the end of the day, putting aside sentiment, language is all about communicating with other people. And what is the point of a language that nobody else can understand?

A groups language directly influences their perception of the world, if a language dies out then another way of perceiving the world dies with it, admittedly many languages have a similar form and so the perception that they allow may be very similar or exactly the same, but there are many languages which allow a unique perception. I know this sounds irrelevant but the progress of humanity is based upon how we view our world - science revolves around what we see and how we see it, if we lose our languages we lose an important scientific resource and, even more importantly, we often lose the culture of which the language is the integral part.

And...? What are you asking of us?

To learn Vanuatu.

I do agree with you, sorta. The thing is that when a language dies, then some of our history also does. Besides shouldn't we be preserving as much knowledge as we can?

Yeah but... what knowledge? What Old Grampa Ulasamoto had for his dinner three years ago? The article said that many of these languages have no written form (which is probably one reason why they are dying), which means there can't really be a great deal of important history dying with them.

Is there no international organisation trying to preserve information about these languages before they disappear?

UNESCO, I think.

Btw, most local languages in the Alps and in the Po Valley are going to disappear, too - with the notable exception of Ladin, Furlan and Rumantsch

Yeah but... what knowledge? What Old Grampa Ulasamoto had for his dinner three years ago? The article said that many of these languages have no written form (which is probably one reason why they are dying), which means there can't really be a great deal of important history dying with them.

No written form does not mean no important history.

Yeah but... what knowledge? What Old Grampa Ulasamoto had for his dinner three years ago? The article said that many of these languages have no written form (which is probably one reason why they are dying), which means there can't really be a great deal of important history dying with them.

I does not matter what the knowledge, all knowledge in all of it's forms should be saved, and recorded. I can't tell what piece of knowledge is going to be handy in the future, can you?

On the bright side, Some of us make up entirely new languages every day. :)

Frankly, I don't see the big deal.

It's like storing useless crap in you garage with the thought of using it in 10 years.

I have never really understood why people are so insistent on preserving dying languages.
...
At the end of the day, putting aside sentiment, language is all about communicating with other people. And what is the point of a language that nobody else can understand?

You fail...

1.We can read some of the dead languages because they had a written form (as Egyptian had). Many dying languages, though, don't have a written form, so the culture tied with them will die with the last speakers.

2.More languages, more cultures, more different ideas. Less languages, less ideas. It's better to have a broader choice of ideas than a narrower one.

3.I don't want MY languages and culture replaced by a linguistical equivalent of Coca-Cola or McDonald's, thank you.

We should probably stock up on a couple of the European languages too.

Yeah but... what knowledge? What Old Grampa Ulasamoto had for his dinner three years ago? The article said that many of these languages have no written form (which is probably one reason why they are dying), which means there can't really be a great deal of important history dying with them.
Navajo was used as an unbreakable code during WWII and it too did not have a written form. That's pretty important, don't you think?

Frankly, I don't see the big deal.

It's like storing useless crap in you garage with the thought of using it in 10 years.

I bet that McGywer would know how to build a warp drive out of the junk in your garage *nod*

Navajo was used as an unbreakable code during WWII and it too did not have a written form. That's pretty important, don't you think?

Erm... not really. Choose another one? Invent one?

Or remember that it's not WW2 anymore, and data encryption methods have moved on since then...?

Erm... not really. Choose another one? Invent one?

Or remember that it's not WW2 anymore, and data encryption methods have moved on since then...?

If all other languages die out, there's nothing else to choose from.
If you make it up, working from a european language (most of which are based around latin and are often more than just closely related) then someone else can work out the sense of it and decode it.

Is there no international organisation trying to preserve information about these languages before they disappear?

Well, there's the Enduring Voices project, apparently.

And...? What are you asking of us?

Why would I be asking anything of you?


I have never really understood why people are so insistent on preserving dying languages.

I'm glad you ask. I'll be happy to try and help you understand.


What exactly is there that you can really do to stop them from dying at any rate? The only thing I can think of is saving a few dictionaries, and have someone with a lot of time on his hands record every single word in that language, but to do so for 6,000-odd languages would take an inordinate amount of resources that I doubt many would be willing or able to commit.

There are 6,000 languages, not 6,000 endangered ones. Still, a great many are indeed endangered. You're correct that it's easier (though not easy) to preserve records of dying languages than it is to keep them alive. Measures are possible to some extent. For instance, New Zealand has a policy of "language nest" schools where children can be taught in New Zealand Maori, Cook Islands Maori, Niuean or a few other languages. Those languages aren't the most threatened, of course, but their usage is declining, hence the government's commendable commitment to promoting their active use.

Likewise, some Melanesian countries where there is huge indigenous linguistic diversity have government-sponsored programmes to encourage the use of indigenous languages, for example in schools, where they may be taught alongside English or pidgin.


But then, if some of these languages have no written form, what knowledge exactly are we losing that we wouldn't lose by said people dying anyway?


Uhm... That's the whole point of writing them down whenever possible. Hence the Enduring Voices project.


And even then, dead languages need not necessarily die - Ancient Egyptian, for example, has been documented extensively in recent centuries, despite nobody speaking it any more.


Because it had a written form.


At the end of the day, putting aside sentiment, language is all about communicating with other people. And what is the point of a language that nobody else can understand?

That's where you're wrong. It's a common mistake to make, especially coming from people who are monolingual (I don't mean this as criticism). No language is a carbon copy of another with only the words differing. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to translate any text or speech from one language to another with complete accuracy. Why? Because each language is the expression of a culture-specific way of viewing, understanding and interpreting the world. No two languages express exactly the same thing - the differences being expressed through grammatical construction, linguistic imagery, variations in vocabulary, and so on.

To give you the most oft-heard example, Inuits have a wide variety of words for "snow", which are not synonyms: they express different forms of snow. Those distinctions don't exist in other languages, where our knowledge and understanding of snow are (for obvious historical and cultural reasons) not as precise.

Another example. When a Cook Islander speaks of "Atua", we would translate that as "God" in English. But the Cook Islander concept of "God", including among Christians, is very different from the general Western concept. When we translate, we lose the subtelty and difference of meaning. If the Cook Islands Maori language were to die out (which it probably will not, fortunately), that unique historical and cultural perspective would be lost.

One last example. Images (metaphors and the like), unique to each language, express a way of viewing the world around us. In French we say "Il pleut des cordes", which literally means "It's raining ropes". That image for rain probably would never occur to an Englishman, because it's not part of his... "linguistic worldview" (for lack of a better way to put it).

Similarly, as the article rightly points out, most languages contain a unique store of scientific knowledge. Indigenous languages in South America and Australia contain words for plants and their usages which have no equivalant in other languages, because the knowledge behind them is absent outside the communities that speak those languages. When the languages die, their unique knowledge dies with them.

Lastly, each language, being the repository of a culture or society's way of understanding and making sense of the world, is also a rich and fascinating store of examples and ideas for the rest of us. Each language contains possibilities for new ways of interpreting the world and society we live in. For example, the Tokelauans have the word "inati". It's impossible to translate into English, because anglophone cultures lack the concept that it expresses. It means a way of living in society whereby essential ressources are shared equally and freely among all members of the community. When we in the West (or anywhere else) have no word for something, it's difficult for us to conceptualise the idea that such a word might express.

In other words, it's exceedingly difficult for you to even conceive of something that you have no word for. Which, incidentally, is one of the main points of Orwell's 1984. "Newspeak" in 1984 is the impoverishing of thought through the impoverishing of language. Likewise, the disappearance of an entire language impoverishes the potential for ideas, concepts and practices in all humanity.

Snip

Thank you for such an erudite post. Most informative.

You fail...

1.We can read some of the dead languages because they had a written form (as Egyptian had). Many dying languages, though, don't have a written form, so the culture tied with them will die with the last speakers.

2.More languages, more cultures, more different ideas. Less languages, less ideas. It's better to have a broader choice of ideas than a narrower one.

3.I don't want MY languages and culture replaced by a linguistical equivalent of Coca-Cola or McDonald's, thank you.

1. But if they have no written language, even if you do understand how to speak the language itself what exactly are you going to learn about the culture after its last member has perished? They've left no writing to learn from! More to the point, why are we learning about a culture that consists of three or four people?!

2. Language =/= culture. You're speaking English to me now, yet you haven't mysteriously shed your entire culture as a result of doing so. More to the point, I don't see what relevance language has to ideas, which tend to form to solve problems...

Our respective ancestors spoke very different languages than those we speak now, for example, yet we still claim to be a part of that 'culture'.

3. It's very hard to commercialise a language. Short of deliberately making it difficult for people to understand each other, what possible reason is there for rejecting a language on principle? The only thing a language is for, is communication. That's it. It has no other purpose.

A groups language directly influences their perception of the world, if a language dies out then another way of perceiving the world dies with it, admittedly many languages have a similar form and so the perception that they allow may be very similar or exactly the same, but there are many languages which allow a unique perception. I know this sounds irrelevant but the progress of humanity is based upon how we view our world - science revolves around what we see and how we see it, if we lose our languages we lose an important scientific resource and, even more importantly, we often lose the culture of which the language is the integral part.


More languages, more cultures, more different ideas. Less languages, less ideas. It's better to have a broader choice of ideas than a narrower one.


Thank you both for putting simply and clearly the essence of what I was trying to say in a muddled way. ;)

To learn Vanuatu.

No such thing, actually. "Vanuatu" is not a language. Vanuatu the country has about 200 indigenous languages, a number of which are severely endangered. It also has three official national languages: French, English and Bislama. The latter is a fascinating form of pidgin English. You can see an example of it on the Bislama version of Wikipedia (http://bi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ("Vanuatu i kaontri long pasifik we olgeta save tok tok long Bislama. Kapital blong hem i Port Vila.")

2. Language =/= culture. You're speaking English to me now, yet you haven't mysteriously shed your entire culture as a result of doing so. More to the point, I don't see what relevance language has to ideas, which tend to form to solve problems...

Language and ideas are tied, and have been since the begining of both. How many times have you heard the phrase 'lost in translation'?

Can you explain to me in English the meaning of the Punjabi word Darshan?

Some langauges contain unique words that do not have any eqiuvilant in other langauges, lose the language and you lose that word, which in turn means you lose knowldege.

Thank you for such an erudite post. Most informative.

Thank you. And you're very welcome. :)

why are we learning about a culture that consists of three or four people?!

2. Language =/= culture. You're speaking English to me now, yet you haven't mysteriously shed your entire culture as a result of doing so. More to the point, I don't see what relevance language has to ideas, which tend to form to solve problems...

Our respective ancestors spoke very different languages than those we speak now, for example, yet we still claim to be a part of that 'culture'.


See my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13066133&postcount=21).


3. It's very hard to commercialise a language. Short of deliberately making it difficult for people to understand each other, what possible reason is there for rejecting a language on principle? The only thing a language is for, is communication. That's it. It has no other purpose.

On that point, history has proven you very wrong indeed.

One example. In Australia in the 1930s, the authorities developed a number of policies explicitly aimed at eradicating the entire Aboriginal population, through a mixture of forced assimilation of "mixed race" children, and isolating "full blood" Aboriginals in the firm belief that the "laws of nature" would cause them to die out by themselves. Forced assimilation entailed, amongst other things, taking children from their mother by force and putting them in closed camps where they were forbidden to speak their own language, and forced to learn English. Why? So that they would lose their culture-specific world view and adopt an anglophone Australian one. The whole idea was that, without their language, they would be incapable of practicing their ancestral culture. The authorities had understood a crucial point: eradicating a language and replacing it by another one is all about power, and the best way to forcefully change someone's way of thinking. (Again, read 1984.)

Can you explain to me in English the meaning of the Punjabi word Darshan?


Probably something along the lines of "You've been smoking those funny cigarettes again haven't you?"

There are 6,000 languages, not 6,000 endangered ones. Still, a great many are indeed endangered. You're correct that it's easier (though not easy) to preserve records of dying languages than it is to keep them alive. Measures are possible to some extent. For instance, New Zealand has a policy of "language nest" schools where children can be taught in New Zealand Maori, Cook Islands Maori, Niuean or a few other languages. Those languages aren't the most threatened, of course, but their usage is declining, hence the government's commendable commitment to promoting their active use.

That's good but it still doesn't explain to me why we're keeping the language alive. If all members of the culture that originally spoke it are dead, what possible usage could it have to a bunch of children outside of an educational aid? Unless they are also being taught about the cultures they come from, then it really is just keeping a language alive for the sake of it.

Uhm... That's the whole point of writing them down whenever possible. Hence the Enduring Voices project.

What I mean is - if they haven't written anything down themselves, what are we going to learn from the language exactly? There's nothing to translate!

Because it had a written form.

Which is the only reason why anybody bothered translating it in the first place!

That's where you're wrong. It's a common mistake to make, especially coming from people who are monolingual (I don't mean this as criticism). No language is a carbon copy of another with only the words differing. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to translate any text or speech from one language to another with complete accuracy. Why? Because each language is the expression of a culture-specific way of viewing, understanding and interpreting the world. No two languages express exactly the same thing - the differences being expressed through grammatical construction, linguistic imagery, variations in vocabulary, and so on.

To give you the most oft-heard example, Inuits have a wide variety of words for "snow", which are not synonyms: they express different forms of snow. Those distinctions don't exist in other languages, where our knowledge and understanding of snow are (for obvious historical and cultural reasons) not as precise.

Another example. When a Cook Islander speaks of "Atua", we would translate that as "God" in English. But the Cook Islander concept of "God", including among Christians, is very different from the general Western concept. When we translate, we lose the subtelty and difference of meaning. If the Cook Islands Maori language were to die out (which it probably will not, fortunately), that unique historical and cultural perspective would be lost.

One last example. Images (metaphors and the like), unique to each language, express a way of viewing the world around us. In French we say "Il pleut des cordes", which literally means "It's raining ropes". That image for rain probably would never occur to an Englishman, because it's not part of his... "linguistic worldview" (for lack of a better way to put it).

I'm sure that different languages have different methods of expressing things, but I'm not really sure I understand the value of having several different words for snow, for example? If every single French speaker died tomorrow, in some mysterious fire-related accident that saw all of their dictionaries swallowed up as well, why would I ever need to know about that raining ropes idiom? It's like the phrase that some of my more 'traditional' family members use sometimes - 'sweating cobs'. I never used to know what that meant or where it came from until they told me, but to be honest... I didn't really gain anything from the understanding, nor do I ever use the phrase myself. And if nobody had ever said it to me, I doubt my life would be much different as a result.

Similarly, as the article rightly points out, most languages contain a unique store of scientific knowledge. Indigenous languages in South America and Australia contain words for plants and their usages which have no equivalant in other languages, because the knowledge behind them is absent outside the communities that speak those languages. When the languages die, their unique knowledge dies with them.

Lastly, each language, being the repository of a culture or society's way of understanding and making sense of the world, is also a rich and fascinating store of examples and ideas for the rest of us. Each language contains possibilities for new ways of interpreting the world and society we live in. For example, the Tokelauans have the word "inati". It's impossible to translate into English, because anglophone cultures lack the concept that it expresses. It means a way of living in society whereby essential ressources are shared equally and freely among all members of the community. When we in the West (or anywhere else) have no word for something, it's difficult for us to conceptualise the idea that such a word might express.

In other words, it's exceedingly difficult for you to even conceive of something that you have no word for. Which, incidentally, is one of the main points of Orwell's 1984. "Newspeak" in 1984 is the impoverishing of thought through the impoverishing of language. Likewise, the disappearance of an entire language impoverishes the potential for ideas, concepts and practices in all humanity.

Well those are important points, then. Thanks for the information!

On that point, history has proven you very wrong indeed.

One example. In Australia in the 1930s, the authorities developed a number of policies explicitly aimed at eradicating the entire Aboriginal population, through a mixture of forced assimilation of "mixed race" children, and isolating "full blood" Aboriginals in the firm belief that the "laws of nature" would cause them to die out by themselves. Forced assimilation entailed, amongst other things, taking children from their mother by force and putting them in closed camps where they were forbidden to speak their own language, and forced to learn English. Why? So that they would lose their culture-specific world view and adopt an anglophone Australian one. The whole idea was that, without their language, they would be incapable of practicing their ancestral culture. The authorities had understood a crucial point: eradicating a language and replacing it by another one is all about power, and the best way to forcefully change someone's way of thinking. (Again, read 1984.)

This is all very true, but nobody is forcing Risottia to speak English... he does it to facilitate communication. If he came onto an English-speaking forum like this and insisted on speaking Italian (assuming that is his language, I guessed by his location), then there would be no 'ideas exchanged' - just a lot of confused expressions.

What I mean is - if they haven't written anything down themselves, what are we going to learn from the language exactly? There's nothing to translate!

Have you ever been told war stories by your grandfather? Unless he kept a detailed journal at the time these stories will most likely be totally undocumented and yet you know about them.... even though they're not written down... this is because of a thing called memory (which is also related to language) this allows you to recall things without reading them from heiroglyphs or papyrus or stone tablet or book or other written form.

Which is the only reason why anybody bothered translating it in the first place!

The only reason that that's the only reason is that there would be nothing to translate if it hadn't been written down.

I'm not really sure I understand the value of having several different words for snow, for example?

Because as far as you (or I) are aware or care there is snow, not hard snow, deep snow, soft snow, dangerous snow, etc

Hmmm, on the one hand, I think less languages has more possibilities for people to understand each other. on the other hand it is sad that these cultures disappear...

That's good but it still doesn't explain to me why we're keeping the language alive. If all members of the culture that originally spoke it are dead, what possible usage could it have to a bunch of children outside of an educational aid? Unless they are also being taught about the cultures they come from, then it really is just keeping a language alive for the sake of it.

You're quite right, and that's basically what I meant. The language cannot meaningfully be dissociated from the culture that produced it. I'm not arguing that people should somehow be made fluent in a dead language, unless they're being -as you say- taught the culture linked to that language.

Of course, having available records of a dead language is not the same as trying to revive it. You can have the former without the latter.


What I mean is - if they haven't written anything down themselves, what are we going to learn from the language exactly? There's nothing to translate!


We can't learn from a dead oral language, obviously. My point was about dying or endagered oral languages. Enduring Voices is one project that goes and talks to speakers of endangered languages to get their language down in writing.


I'm sure that different languages have different methods of expressing things, but I'm not really sure I understand the value of having several different words for snow, for example?

Knowledge for its own sake, for one thing. The different words don't mean the same thing. Each of them means a different aspect or state of snow. Which is also a form of indigenous scientific knowledge that may be useful to (some) people outside that society.


If every single French speaker died tomorrow, in some mysterious fire-related accident that saw all of their dictionaries swallowed up as well, why would I ever need to know about that raining ropes idiom? It's like the phrase that some of my more 'traditional' family members use sometimes - 'sweating cobs'. I never used to know what that meant or where it came from until they told me, but to be honest... I didn't really gain anything from the understanding, nor do I ever use the phrase myself. And if nobody had ever said it to me, I doubt my life would be much different as a result.


That's a reasonably fair point, but you could also argue that each new image or metaphor suggests a new way of thinking to you, and is therefore... well, "mentally enriching". I'm not quite sure how else to put it. If nothing else, it opens up your mind to other ways of viewing things. It may be small, and indeed it's nothing life-changing, but it's not quite insignificant either.


Well those are important points, then. Thanks for the information!

You're welcome. :)

2. Language =/= culture. You're speaking English to me now, yet you haven't mysteriously shed your entire culture as a result of doing so. More to the point, I don't see what relevance language has to ideas, which tend to form to solve problems...
Language is very much tied into culture. The phrase "That will be difficult" as an answer to a request has two separate meanings in the US and Japan.

And how can you understand a culture's ideas unless you speak its language?

Hmmm, on the one hand, I think less languages has more possibilities for people to understand each other. on the other hand it is sad that these cultures disappear...


This is all very true, but nobody is forcing Risottia to speak English... he does it to facilitate communication. If he came onto an English-speaking forum like this and insisted on speaking Italian (assuming that is his language, I guessed by his location), then there would be no 'ideas exchanged' - just a lot of confused expressions.

Yes, quite right. Which enables me to reply to you at the same time as I reply to Rejistania. It's not an "either, or" case. You can learn English to enable and facilitate international communication, while retaining your own native language too. Being bilingual or multilingual is all the more valuable as it increases your awareness of differences between languages, not to mention that it helps communicate those differences.

Yes, quite right. Which enables me to reply to you at the same time as I reply to Rejistania. It's not an "either, or" case. You can learn English to enable and facilitate international communication, while retaining your own native language too. Being bilingual or multilingual is all the more valuable as it increases your awareness of differences between languages, not to mention that it helps communicate those differences.
Right, I am sometimes quite clumsy when around monolingual persons because I realize that they often see things in one way and do not even imagine they can be different.

Knowledge for its own sake, for one thing. The different words don't mean the same thing. Each of them means a different aspect or state of snow. Which is also a form of indigenous scientific knowledge that may be useful to (some) people outside that society.

Which leads on to something else I've never quite understood (as my old foreign languages teacher would probably attest to, if she were still alive) - if these words and phrases cannot be translated into another language, how exactly can somebody who is not a native speaker ever learn to understand them?

Language is very much tied into culture. The phrase "That will be difficult" as an answer to a request has two separate meanings in the US and Japan.

And how can you understand a culture's ideas unless you speak its language?

Well, I know how Ancient Egyptians lived their lives, and what they believed in, without being able to speak their language.

While the respective idioms of a language are important reflections of the experiences and traditions of a culture, if I don't know anything about those experiences and traditions, the idioms aren't going to mean anything to me whether I speak the language or not.

Which leads on to something else I've never quite understood (as my old foreign languages teacher would probably attest to, if she were still alive) - if these words and phrases cannot be translated into another language, how exactly can somebody who is not a native speaker ever learn to understand them?


With difficulty, but it is possible to some extent. It generally has to involve complicated rephrasing along with explanations regarding the language's cultural and historical background.

Another example, closer to home. And speaking from experience, as a native speaker of both French and English. In French we have no obvious direct translation for the English word "nice". Look in a dictionary and it will give you suggestions for translations, but you won't find a French word which can convey the precise and exact sense of what English people mean when they say "nice". That's a simple but concrete example of a language being shaped into the expression of a culture and society's uniqueness (in terms of concepts, ideas, ways of interpreting the world and human relations, etc...).

Similarly, when I was teaching French for beginners at Sydney Uni four years ago, a student asked me what the French word for "posh" is. There isn't one, not strictly speaking. "Posh" is a concept specific to the English language.

A groups language directly influences their perception of the world

Sapir-Whorf is bullshit. Try again.

Sapir-Whorf is bullshit. Try again.

No - the idea that language has no influence on thought is bullshit. Try again.

It doesn't.

It only affects what thoughts can be communicated to others.

It is quite possible to perfectly form or understand a concept as a complete abstraction, without any sort of linguistic description. A reasonably intelligent person does it quite often, and a genius such as myself does it all the time.

~snip~twice~

Very well said indeed. You've saved me much typing.
Ariddia pwns the thread! (note the evolution of language there, without making the originating form (English, a Germanic language) redundant...)

For more on how 'the words are dying': linky (http://hopeisemo.com/node/887)

(Ps: Ariddia - I really do mean "very well said", despite my subsequent irreverence) :)

It doesn't.


Rubbish. Of course an individual may in some cases come up with a concept for which there is no word in his or her language, but it is patently absurd to claim, as you do, that a society's language in no way shapes or influences its perception of the world. As I believe I've demonstrated thoroughly.

Tell me, how many languages do you speak fluently, as a native?

English, Russian, Classical Latin, Classical Greek, Hungarian.

Of course an individual may in some cases come up with a concept for which there is no word in his or her language,
Exactly--language does not restrict the range of thought; it only restricts the range of communication.

but it is patently absurd to claim, as you do, that a society's language in no way shapes or influences its perception of the world.

It doesn't.

Language reflects perception--it does not dictate it. For a language to dictate perception, then it would have to be handed down from on high rather than being progressively developed among a community of communicators.

Very well said indeed. You've saved me much typing.
Ariddia pwns the thread! (note the evolution of language there, without making the originating form (English, a Germanic language) redundant...)

Heh. Good point. ;) And thank you.


For more on how 'the words are dying': linky (http://hopeisemo.com/node/887)


Thanks, I'll take a look.

Exactly--language does not restrict the range of thought; it only restricts the range of communication.


Believe me, you are not a native speaker of Classical Latin.

And "restrict" is not the same as "inhibit completely".

You can't tell me you've never met people who assume that people in foreign societies think exactly the same as they do and have an identical lifestyle and values, and who've never conceived even of the possibility of things being done differently to the way they're used to.


It doesn't.

Language reflects perception--it does not dictate it. For a language to dictate perception, then it would have to be handed down from on high rather than being progressively developed among a community of communicators.

Non sequitur. The fact that language is clearly adaptable does not in any way mean it doesn't dictate perception to a significant extent. Very often, too, adapatation is due to the introduction of concepts from outside societies (the concept kastom in Melanesian societies is a fascinating case in point). Again, see all my points earlier in this thread.

Believe me, you are not a native speaker of Classical Latin.
I didn't claim otherwise.

Since it's by definition impossible to be a native speaker of more than one language, when you said "as a native" I thought you meant "with the level of fluency equivalent to that of a native speaker."

You can't tell me you've never met people who assume that people in foreign societies think exactly the same as they do and have an identical lifestyle and values, and who've never conceived even of the possibility of things being done differently to the way they're used to.
Language has nothing to do with that; that's just simple parochialism.

Non sequitur. The fact that language is clearly adaptable does not in any way mean it doesn't dictate perception to a significant extent.
No, the fact that languages are produced by societies, rather than vice-versa, does. Language reflects perception; the perception is metaphysically prior to it appearing in language.

Russians didn't become risk-averse because they were handed down from on high a language and style of speaking that favored understatements; they developed a language that favored understatements because the Russians have been historically risk-averse.

Your gross inversion of causality is disturbing.

It doesn't.

It only affects what thoughts can be communicated to others.

It is quite possible to perfectly form or understand a concept as a complete abstraction, without any sort of linguistic description. A reasonably intelligent person does it quite often, and a genius such as myself does it all the time.

As the bull shit word has already been used, I'd feel left out if I didn do the same.

When you say this you may as well say that language has no role in learning. All ideas come from others, ultimatly, all that you have figured out for your self is built around the knowledge of those who have come before you.

Language does more than communicate ideas, it helps build them. When you have 'internal dialouge' it is words that you hear, not abstract pictures, but words.

Language has nothing to do with that; that's just simple parochialism.

No, the fact that languages are produced by societies, rather than vice-versa, does. Language reflects perception; the perception is metaphysically prior to it appearing in language.

Russians didn't become risk-averse because they were handed down from on high a language and style of speaking that favored understatements; they developed a language that favored understatements because the Russians have been historically risk-averse.


That's your personal opinion, based on... absolutely nothing.

I've demonstrated to you, repeatedly and in significant detail, why language both shapes society and is shaped by it (not to mention Peepelonia's very good points (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13066380&postcount=47), and others'). You simply saying "No, that's not true", without addressing the facts I've laid out, amounts to nothing more than unsubstantiated denial of reality.

That's your personal opinion, based on... absolutely nothing.

I've demonstrated to you, repeatedly and in significant detail, why language both shapes society and is shaped by it. You simply saying "No, that's not true", without addressing the facts I've laid out, amounts to nothing more than unsubstantiated denial of reality.

No that's not true!

When you say this you may as well say that language has no role in learning.
Sometimes it doesn't, depending on whether it's learning from lectures or books vs. learning by doing and experience.

All ideas come from others, ultimatly,
Then how could anyone come up with any ideas to begin with? That is a patently absurd statement.

all that you have figured out for your self is built around the knowledge of those who have come before you.
Not true.

Language does more than communicate ideas, it helps build them.
When you have 'internal dialouge'
My thought processes do not operate in that manner, and neither do those of any reasonably intelligent person.

it is words that you hear, not abstract pictures, but words.
I'm there. You're not. I know what's going on in my own head.

That's your personal opinion, based on... absolutely nothing.

I've demonstrated to you, repeatedly and in significant detail, why language both shapes society and is shaped by it (not to mention Peepelonia's very good points (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13066380&postcount=47), and others').
Every example you've given has been predicated on a reversal of cause-and-effect.

You simply saying "No, that's not true", without addressing the facts I've laid out,
I have, by pointing out that the order of events as you describe them is the reverse of what actually happened. That's what "gross inversion of causality" means.

Every example you've given has been predicated on a reversal of cause-and-effect.


And you know which is cause and which is effect how exactly - is this another example of your self-proclaimed genius?

I didn't claim otherwise.

Since it's by definition impossible to be a native speaker of more than one language, when you said "as a native" I thought you meant "with the level of fluency equivalent to that of a native speaker."~snip~ Emphasis mine.

Not true. I'm from a part of The Netherlands with it very own, full blown, officially recognized language. I learned that one at home, wile at the same time learning Dutch both in the streets and in school. Which, I feel, makes me native speaker of both languages. And last time I looked, two is "more than one".

And you know which is cause and which is effect how exactly - is this another example of your self-proclaimed genius?

Are languages created, developed, and evolved by people progressively over time or are they handed down from on high?

Are languages created, developed, and evolved by people progressively over time or are they handed down from on high?

Do cultures stay exactly the same or change over time. The interplay between languages and cultures is shifting and complex so any assertions such as yours about cause and effect are just idiotic.

It is quite possible to perfectly form or understand a concept as a complete abstraction, without any sort of linguistic description. A reasonably intelligent person does it quite often, and a genius such as myself does it all the time.How would you know if the concept is an abstraction or how to differentiate the concept from other concepts?

Some langauges contain unique words that do not have any eqiuvilant in other langauges, lose the language and you lose that word, which in turn means you lose knowldege.
I'm not sure that to lose a unique word for something necessarily means losing the knowledge of that thing.

Lots of languages have unique words for certain things, or combinations of things. The most quoted (and I see it's been reference in this thread) is probably the old chestnut about the "Eskimos having a bajillion words for snow". It's not entirely true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow), but that doesn't really matter because it's just one example.

Does the fact that English only has the word 'snow' to cover all snowy eventualities mean that we have lost the knowledge of the wide variations of snowiness that it's possible to experience? Of course not, it just means that we employ other adjectives to increase the accuracy of the descriptions.

There's an old Scots word, 'dreich', which is used to describe grey, cold, wet and just generally miserable weather (and can also be used to describe a miserable person, but I digress). Does the fact that this colloquialism doesn't exist in other parts of the world that have English as their native tongue mean that those places possess no knowledge of 'dreich' weather? Again, of course not, it just means that they have other words to describe it.

Languages are not static, they evolve over time. Any contemporary English speaker or writer would be hard-pressed to communicate with an English peasant circa 1000AD, because the language has changed. I'm not suggesting that we should abandon 'dying' languages wholesale, or purge them from our textbooks, but let's try to keep a little perspective here. We still have the knowledge.

Then how could anyone come up with any ideas to begin with? That is a patently absurd statement.
Obviously, the original ideas were found carved into stone by natural forces. These ideas were written, of course, in the native language of the people who found them.

a genius such as myself

hah!

Sometimes it doesn't, depending on whether it's learning from lectures or books vs. learning by doing and experience.

Books though contian language, when you listen to a lecture you are listening to language. When you learn by experiance, the very first time you encounter a new experiances, you are clueless until you seek advice.


Then how could anyone come up with any ideas to begin with? That is a patently absurd statement.

Heh and by that you mean you have not examined the idea enough?

The very first learning experiances you have are when as a baby you start to copy others. You learn to talk, and walk, you learn your cultural ideas for others that share your culture, your manners from you perants. First comes language, and from there come abstract ideas. All of what you know stems ultimatly from the knowldedge of those who have come before. Care to point out just one example of a uniqie idea?



Not true.

Yu uh!


My thought processes do not operate in that manner, and neither do those of any reasonably intelligent person.

And of course you can show me how this is so? Tell me then one of the things that you know, that has not been built upon prior knowledge?


I'm there. You're not. I know what's going on in my own head.

So what you are saying is that when you talk to yourself in your head, when you are formulating plans, or just general pondering, it is in pictures that this 'internal dialouge' takes place and never in langauge. You quite litraly see your self think, and never hear yourself think?

I'm not sure that to lose a unique word for something necessarily means losing the knowledge of that thing.

Lots of languages have unique words for certain things, or combinations of things. The most quoted (and I see it's been reference in this thread) is probably the old chestnut about the "Eskimos having a bajillion words for snow". It's not entirely true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow), but that doesn't really matter because it's just one example.

Does the fact that English only has the word 'snow' to cover all snowy eventualities mean that we have lost the knowledge of the wide variations of snowiness that it's possible to experience? Of course not, it just means that we employ other adjectives to increase the accuracy of the descriptions.

There's an old Scots word, 'dreich', which is used to describe grey, cold, wet and just generally miserable weather (and can also be used to describe a miserable person, but I digress). Does the fact that this colloquialism doesn't exist in other parts of the world that have English as their native tongue mean that those places possess no knowledge of 'dreich' weather? Again, of course not, it just means that they have other words to describe it.

Languages are not static, they evolve over time. Any contemporary English speaker or writer would be hard-pressed to communicate with an English peasant circa 1000AD, because the language has changed. I'm not suggesting that we should abandon 'dying' languages wholesale, or purge them from our textbooks, but let's try to keep a little perspective here. We still have the knowledge.

No you didn't get the point.

I said some languges have words whos meanings simply do not transtlate into other languages. Then you procede to give me examples of words, and what they transtlate into. Thats sorta misses my point entirly.

I pointed out a Punjabi word 'Darshan', while we can translate it into a meaning similar to what it actualy means, we cannot give the exact meaning. So to understand the concept of darshan you must be able to speak Punjabi, further more, you must be able to figure in Punjabi, if that language dies then we loose the concept of darshan.

The biggest loss of language was the slave trade. I's estimated that there may have been as many as 30,000 languages in Africa before the slave trade (both on the west and east). Slave traders purposely took slaves from different languages so the slaves couldn't communicate as they were being transported. It cut down on rebellion. It is thought that half of the African languages went extinct during that time.

It is interesting that some of those of African ancestry feel a need to find a "native" language so learn Swahili. The odds that this is the language of their ancestors is slim because it is an east African language, and it is the language of the people that aided the Arabic slave traders in east Africa. Yet there is that need for connection of any kind to one's roots.

No you didn't get the point.

I said some languges have words whos meanings simply do not transtlate into other languages. Then you procede to give me examples of words, and what they transtlate into. Thats sorta misses my point entirly.

I pointed out a Punjabi word 'Darshan', while we can translate it into a meaning similar to what it actualy means, we cannot give the exact meaning. So to understand the concept of darshan you must be able to speak Punjabi, further more, you must be able to figure in Punjabi, if that language dies then we loose the concept of darshan.
I got your point just fine, thanks. I just happen to disagree with it, and I may have been clumsy in expressing myself with my reply.

Single words may not always translate into single words, but they should always be translatable into phrases or descriptions. If they're not, then by definition they cannot be explained to those who are familiar with the native tongue but who are new to the concept in question. An exception might be made by some, I suppose, for concepts involving some kind of divine/revelatory experience, but such experiences are always going to be wholly subjective and trying to explain them would boil down to a sort of 'my perception of the colour green is not the same as your perception of the colour green' situation, which would get us nowhere.

I simply don't accept that something that can be conceptualised by an individual human being can only be expressed in one language. To reiterate, it may be that there is not a pre-existing word in the target language that fits the bill but it should certainly be possible to build a decription that does it justice.

I got your point just fine, thanks. I just happen to disagree with it, and I may have been clumsy in expressing myself with my reply.

Single words may not always translate into single words, but they should always be translatable into phrases or descriptions. If they're not, then by definition they cannot be explained to those who are familiar with the native tongue but who are new to the concept in question. An exception might be made by some, I suppose, for concepts involving some kind of divine/revelatory experience, but such experiences are always going to be wholly subjective and trying to explain them would boil down to a sort of 'my perception of the colour green is not the same as your perception of the colour green' situation, which would get us nowhere.

I simply don't accept that something that can be conceptualised by an individual human being can only be expressed in one language. To reiterate, it may be that there is not a pre-existing word in the target language that fits the bill but it should certainly be possible to build a decription that does it justice.

That's the thing though. A translation, even from phrases to phrases won't be 100% accurate.

I mean, does the term "Weltanshauung" in German 100% accurately translate to "World view"? I should think not. Even a bigger, more descriptive phrase will never totally translate from the original word.

Not to mention context issues with words that have multiple meanings, and when the translators have a personal bias. We see this all the time in arguments on religious texts, and their resulting translations.

That's the thing though. A translation, even from phrases to phrases won't be 100% accurate.

I mean, does the term "Weltanshauung" in German 100% accurately translate to "World view"? I should think not. Even a bigger, more descriptive phrase will never totally translate from the original word.

Not to mention context issues with words that have multiple meanings, and when the translators have a personal bias. We see this all the time in arguments on religious texts, and their resulting translations.
My point is that the idea that a word or concept could be untranslatable can only hold true if we accept that people using different languages are wired differently; that their minds work in a way alien to those of others; that they possess insights or grasp concepts that others simply cannot. I know that studies show that human brains develop differently under different environmental stimuli (which no doubt includes linguistic/cultural influences... I'm sure I saw a neuroscientist on NSG recently who might be able to confirm or deny this) but I don't accept that these differences might preclude being able to grasp (and therefore describe) a concept.

I concede that it might not be easy to translate a concept represented by a single word into a different language, but I simply don't buy that it's impossible. Linguistic evolution takes care of this too, either by assimilating a word completely so that starts being used within the destination language (zeitgeist and Schadenfreude spring to mind) or by creating a corrupted version of the word (e.g. bungalow).

Of course, my whole argument centres around me not being able to accept that people might be so different at a fundamental level- my own version of an argument from personal incredulity, if you will. I may be wrong... it wouldn't be the first time.

:)

The biggest loss of language was the slave trade. I's estimated that there may have been as many as 30,000 languages in Africa before the slave trade (both on the west and east). Slave traders purposely took slaves from different languages so the slaves couldn't communicate as they were being transported. It cut down on rebellion. It is thought that half of the African languages went extinct during that time.

It is interesting that some of those of African ancestry feel a need to find a "native" language so learn Swahili. The odds that this is the language of their ancestors is slim because it is an east African language, and it is the language of the people that aided the Arabic slave traders in east Africa. Yet there is that need for connection of any kind to one's roots.

Wow, I had no idea.

As said before, each language lost is a group of people's beliefs and values lost. It is history lost, that cannot be recovered.

No you didn't get the point.

I said some languges have words whos meanings simply do not transtlate into other languages. Then you procede to give me examples of words, and what they transtlate into. Thats sorta misses my point entirly.


The thing is a person can use other words in another language to sort of, kind of, in a way, give an estimation of what the word meant. But can not give an exact translation no matter how many words in the new language are used.

This is why there are so many interpretations of the Bible. The original words can't be directly translated.

This is a study of Semantics. The internal meaning of words rather than the outward meaning of words. Example: The big "N" word. A direct translation would simply be "black". But yet it has overriding meaning beyond the simple translation to "black". Those overriding emotions that follow words are hard if not impossible to translate.

My point is that the idea that a word or concept could be untranslatable can only hold true if we accept that people using different languages are wired differently; that their minds work in a way alien to those of others; that they possess insights or grasp concepts that others simply cannot. I know that studies show that human brains develop differently under different environmental stimuli (which no doubt includes linguistic/cultural influences... I'm sure I saw a neuroscientist on NSG recently who might be able to confirm or deny this) but I don't accept that these differences might preclude being able to grasp (and therefore describe) a concept.

I concede that it might not be easy to translate a concept represented by a single word into a different language, but I simply don't buy that it's impossible. Linguistic evolution takes care of this too, either by assimilating a word completely so that starts being used within the destination language (zeitgeist and Schadenfreude spring to mind) or by creating a corrupted version of the word (e.g. bungalow).

Of course, my whole argument centres around me not being able to accept that people might be so different at a fundamental level- my own version of an argument from personal incredulity, if you will. I may be wrong... it wouldn't be the first time.

:)

It doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with predetermined wiring, though. One of the central topics of this thread has been whether or not language affects perception of the world. So that slight loss of accuracy in translation can either be caused by hardwiring, which I disagree with, or by differences in perception, which, given that each of these languages emerge from distinct cultures, seems the more likely of the two.

My language, Cree, is in danger, as many of the fluent speakers are extremely old. There really is a generation gap of about two, to three generations that are no longer fluent. However, many people my age are making a concerted effort to become more fluent in our language, and pass it on to our children. It is said that it will take three generations of this for the language to once again thrive. However, the Cree are one of the largest First Nations groups in Canada, and we are very spread out. Many other language groups have much smaller populations, and struggle with resources...at least I can study my language at University...the Stoney, Dene, and Blood of this province cannot.

On the 'meaning of words' front...there are concepts in my language that are so inextricably linked to our culture, that they cannot be accurately translated without a fairly detailed explanation as to the underlying concepts involved.

My point is that the idea that a word or concept could be untranslatable can only hold true if we accept that people using different languages are wired differently; that their minds work in a way alien to those of others; that they possess insights or grasp concepts that others simply cannot.
:)

At the time of birth a child can be taught to speak any language (with the possible exception of the "click" languages of Africa, which might take a different mouth configuration) but as the child develops the brain is wired for a specific set of sounds. After about 5 a child will have trouble learning languages that contain completely different sounds. By puberty the child will likely never be able to speak as a native. Example: We had a neighbor that grew up in England, then married an American. She lived 60 of her 80 years in the US but always had an English "spice" to her voice. This is why a second language should be taught early. And it does not inhibit a child from speaking like a native in two or more languages if raised in a two language household.

So yes, after a while a child is "wired" toward one (or two) language. It's thought that this is a survival method. Having a set of "meaningful" sounds lets the person's mind catch other sound with more attention. So a person can be half asleep around the campfire and take no notice of the conversations around him. Yet if an unusual sound is heard he snaps to attention even if that sound is at a far lower volume than the sounds of conversation.

With this does develop ways of looking at things. Sort of like the old story of different people feeling different parts of an elephant. The view of the world comes from a different angle than those using a different language. If there was no word for "war" it would be hard to think of the concept. If there was no word for "ocean" or "lake" how could the person's mind bring in such an image?

In fact, if we want to get technical, the meaning you give to any word is different than the meaning that anyone else gives to that word. You filter every word through your past experiences, which are different than the past experiences of everyone else. That is why you can tell a person to do something and they do something different than you expected. They decoded the words differently than you encoded them. They went by their storehouse of knowledge and you went by yours.

I honestly don't care. It just means less languages I don't understand. That makes me feel smarter. As far as I'm concerned all languages can go away except for English and Spanish and I'd be happy.

I honestly don't care. It just means less languages I don't understand. That makes me feel smarter. As far as I'm concerned all languages can go away except for English and Spanish and I'd be happy.

Sure, its alright for other people's culture to disappear. Its inferior to ours, so why care about it?

I got your point just fine, thanks. I just happen to disagree with it, and I may have been clumsy in expressing myself with my reply.

Single words may not always translate into single words, but they should always be translatable into phrases or descriptions. If they're not, then by definition they cannot be explained to those who are familiar with the native tongue but who are new to the concept in question. An exception might be made by some, I suppose, for concepts involving some kind of divine/revelatory experience, but such experiences are always going to be wholly subjective and trying to explain them would boil down to a sort of 'my perception of the colour green is not the same as your perception of the colour green' situation, which would get us nowhere.

I simply don't accept that something that can be conceptualised by an individual human being can only be expressed in one language. To reiterate, it may be that there is not a pre-existing word in the target language that fits the bill but it should certainly be possible to build a decription that does it justice.


Ahhh disagreement then.

Yes I agree that you can get a similar meaning in translation. But we a talking about knowledge here. In many cases similar is not enough, if even the slightest nuance is lost in translation, then it is true to say that something has been lost yes?

Also as I have alluded to, language really does shape the way you think, or percive. To be fluent in a language not your own, means learning to think in a way that natives of that language do. How many times have you heard those with more than one language say things like 'it's strange but I talk English but think German'?

Sapir-Whorf is bullshit. Try again.

It doesn't.

It only affects what thoughts can be communicated to others.

It is quite possible to perfectly form or understand a concept as a complete abstraction, without any sort of linguistic description. A reasonably intelligent person does it quite often, and a genius such as myself does it all the time.

You have a one, two, many counting system. How many cows are in the field?


Yes abstract concepts can be understood without the need to linguistically define them but if you have the language to define them they are no longer abstract.

I honestly don't care. It just means less languages I don't understand. That makes me feel smarter. As far as I'm concerned all languages can go away except for English and Spanish and I'd be happy.

It doesn't make you any smarter though, that said not understanding a language doesn't make you stupid - you can't understand what you haven't been taught or learnt through your own study... occasionally there are those who can learn a language just by listening to the conversations of those speaking it for a while with some degree of concept but that's rare and requires knowledge about the way that languages are formed... anyway, more language is good, if confusing.

I do agree with you, sorta. The thing is that when a language dies, then some of our history also does. Besides shouldn't we be preserving as much knowledge as we can?

Of course we should. Language is a link to the past, with which we can further understand it; if nobody is able to translate cuniform, we lose the ability to gain further information from Mesopotamian sources.

Of course we should. Language is a link to the past, with which we can further understand it; if nobody is able to translate cuniform, we lose the ability to gain further information from Mesopotamian sources.

yep yep, I wasn't even thinking of history specificaly, just the thought of losing any knowledge turns me cold inside.

Can you explain to me in English the meaning of the Punjabi word Darshan?

A cursory search reveals that, assuming it's the same as Darshan in Sanskrit, it's not particularly hard to explain. And if it was, English would just co-opt the word. Using English is a bad example in these sorts of cases, since it's a cannibal language.

A cursory search reveals that, assuming it's the same as Darshan in Sanskrit, it's not particularly hard to explain. And if it was, English would just co-opt the word. Using English is a bad example in these sorts of cases, since it's a cannibal language.

Heh so it means?

Heh so it means?

He's got a point. Words like Jungle were adopted from other languages into English, when no equivalent words could be found.

Heh so it means?

I'm not cutting and pasting a 5 page article explaining it. Just because it's easy to explain doesn't make the explanation short. Just look up "Darshan" on wikipedia. They've got a decent explanation.

Books though contian language, when you listen to a lecture you are listening to language.
Did I claim otherwise? What part of "Sometimes it doesn't" do you not understand?

When you learn by experiance, the very first time you encounter a new experiances, you are clueless until you seek advice.
Patently false. I have a rational mind; that is sufficient.



The very first learning experiances you have are when as a baby you start to copy others. You learn to talk, and walk, you learn your cultural ideas for others that share your culture, your manners from you perants. First comes language, and from there come abstract ideas. All of what you know stems ultimatly from the knowldedge of those who have come before. Care to point out just one example of a uniqie idea?
I was referring to the very beginning of time, when people first began to develop ideas and concepts.

I was referring to the very beginning of time, when people first began to develop ideas and concepts.

is it your contention that our australopithicine ancestors were contemplating truth and beauty and mathematics before making social vocalizations?

No...just pointing out the absurdity that truly original thought is impossible. Somebody had to be the first to come up with whatever the first concept developed was.

is it your contention that our australopithicine ancestors were contemplating truth and beauty and mathematics before making social vocalizations?

It's an accepted theory that humans have a hard time thinking about a subject before there is language to describe the subject. That's why new scientific theory often gets funny off the top names. The scientist needs to call it something in order for the mind you process the idea.

It's an accepted theory that humans have a hard time thinking about a subject before there is language to describe the subject. That's why new scientific theory often gets funny off the top names. The scientist needs to call it something in order for the mind you process the idea.

QFT

It's why the quantum number S is called Spin, despite the fact that the electron does not, in fact, actually spin, and the quantum number L is called angular momentum despite the fact that the electron doesn't actually revolve around the nucleus of an atom. We are so incapable of conceptualizing the fact that the electron exists as a waveform everywhere until it is collapsed in observation, that we find it simpler, easier, and more concise to use words related to outdated models of electrons spinning around protons, and rotated about their own axes, that have no physical reality.

While I agree the language should be preserved in some way, we must accept that languages will naturally disappear and come about over time. The trend is toward one world language within 500 years by my book.

While I agree the language should be preserved in some way, we must accept that languages will naturally disappear and come about over time. The trend is toward one world language within 500 years by my book.

That would be, quite literally, one of the greatest disasters in the history of humanity. A giant step backwards in progress and evolution, by any definition.

But why assume a shared international language would imply the disappearance of the world's linguistic diversity? A great many people today are raised bilingual.

I'm not cutting and pasting a 5 page article explaining it. Just because it's easy to explain doesn't make the explanation short. Just look up "Darshan" on wikipedia. They've got a decent explanation.

Yet even here it gives what 5 differant meanings, hence my question.

You don't have to cut and paste anything, just give my your definition on what you think the word means. Its very easy, look I'll even start you off.

Darshan = Sight

Or could it be....

Darshan = Grace

Both I think you'll agree two totaly differant words, with differant meanings.

Did I claim otherwise? What part of "Sometimes it doesn't" do you not understand?

Ohhhh handbags huh! I understand the phrase you used, I was trying to show you that it is false. You have not yet swayed me, go on sway me, change my mind, instead of insulting my intelegence.


Patently false. I have a rational mind; that is sufficient.

Umm and you was born with this mind as it is, or you had to learn to build it up to what it is now?

You are saying that when faced with a sphere of knowledge that you haven't encountered before your brain power is so great that what, you can just intuitetivly understand it with no recourse to learning. That you need no aid, via books, internet searches, or whatever, you need ask no questions of anybody. Rubbish! Or as you put it patently false.



I was referring to the very beginning of time, when people first began to develop ideas and concepts.

Even then, they did not just pop into the head as fully formed ideas. Monkey see, monkey do. All knowldege is built upon what has been learnt before, it is a gradual process of building, rather than instant gratifacation, and this has probably evolved from our basic primitive instincts.

Small mammal instinctivly knows that preditor will eat it. Some time later small mamal has evolved into tree climbing primate, which instinctivly knows that preditor will eat it. Later Ug the cave dweller still reatians this instinct but has learned that throw rock preditor runs away. Later still Ug's great, great grand children have learned, pointy stick kill preditor, prey becomes preditor.

A gradual evolution of knowledge. We are quite certian now that the human brain evoluved as a series of modules.

No...just pointing out the absurdity that truly original thought is impossible. Somebody had to be the first to come up with whatever the first concept developed was.

Yet that is not what you said, that absurdity is what you are argueing for.

While I agree the language should be preserved in some way, we must accept that languages will naturally disappear and come about over time. The trend is toward one world language within 500 years by my book.

This has been debated for some time. What happens when the US has an economic collapse and English is replaced by some other language in international trade? Do we have English forming many other local languages as happened with Latin? Or do we have such world wide communication that the various dialects will not only continue but actually merge?

What happens when the US has an economic collapse and English is replaced by some other language in international trade??? English is not the global lingua franca because of the US (although US folks have the arrogance to think thus). International English is not US-American English. If the US had an economic collapse, it would definitely not affect the use of English in international trade/affairs.

As long as the Celtic languages survive, that's really all that matters.

?? English is not the global lingua franca because of the US (although US folks have the arrogance to think thus). International English is not US-American English. If the US had an economic collapse, it would definitely not affect the use of English in international trade/affairs.

Yeah, I'm fairly confident that the reason English is so prolific is, just possibly, because of England.

Yeah, I'm fairly confident that the reason English is so prolific is, just possibly, because of England.

England passed it around the world, but it became the international language because of the economic power of the United States. Before English, French was the language of the elite and upper circles of communication. I can see German becoming the economic language when the east is fully industrialized. Chinese might become the next language but the Chinese have traditionally stayed within their sphere of influence (their own country and surrounding areas).

The question is: What happens to English? Does it merge into one world wide dialect or splinter as Latin did?