/lit/ - Literature

Word is a virus.

sapir whorf
noam chomsky
blah blah blah read a book already

Why have the people who speak Indo-European languages had such tremendous impact on the history of mankind? Even from the times of the Greek, Romans, Persians, Indians, Hittites...
Was it just a matter of luck that they all embraced civilization so quickly?

>>1769743
Read Guns, Germs, Steel by Jared Diamond for the answer.

no.

our concept of language determines how well we can express our thoughts, it doesn't dictate what our actual thoughts are.

This is why even dimwits with a very limited vocabulary (or no vocabulary) can have opinions and feelings.

The way most Indo-European languages are constructed pre-suppose an ego separated from all other egos - 'I' - that acts upon objects. But language was impossible before a concept of Being . . The only real conclusion you can draw is that a culture's ontological perception of itself and that culture's language are inseparable, and arose mutually. Consciousness, and an awareness of Being, are intimately tied to the ways in which we express that consciousness and awareness - some would argue that the awareness and the expression of that awareness are the same, and that there is no 'essential Being' that lies hidden until we find words to describe it - in other words, Being itself is language and expression.

>>1769750

Languages shapes our perceptions pretty distinctly. Our use and concept of time stems heavily from our language The classis example being certain ribes who couldnt grasp concepts past, present, and future because they only discussed in "now" and "not now"

>>1769750
You're implying that there are thoughts outside of language, which is absolutely ridiculous. Thought and the expression of thought are the same thing.

>>1769734

yeah, except that both deep structure and sapir whorf contain lots of problems

was that supposed to be an answer?

>>1769761
>>1769761
>>1769761

there is absolutely thought outside of language. ever play music? paint a painting? communicate by dancing? also, ever look at a sunset? were you thinking about it in words while you did?

i think it's a little more complicated than you're asserting.

>>1769761
no.

I'd argue that even when there are not words for what we are feeling, we make them up. It's a silly example but the German word for glove translates directly to ' Hand-Shoe'. And when we can't make a word up on our own, we just borrow from other languages. Like Shadenfreude, or ennui.

and

>he thinks expressible in language is a case of thought conforming to language instead of the other way around.

ever tried to think of a word but can't. don't phone home about it, language-as-symbols guys don't get it.

People in Asian countries can usually count and calculate much faster because the actual words are shorter. It influences in a way that there are subleties and nuances (and >implications) in every language which will lead to a more exact representation of what we're observing. And how is "being" an illusion?

>>1769760
I reiterate what I said earlier about language determining how well we can express our thoughts

for example, there is no English equivalent for the word toska. That doesn't mean that English speakers have never felt or cannot comprehend toska, they would just have greater difficulty in expressing it.

>>1769763
>the thing you are proposing that everyone would be taking for granted except that it is contentious has problems that make it contentious

was that supposed to be a response

>>1769769
Okay - so go ahead and try to have a thought outside of language. You can't. Because thinking is a necessarily symbolic act - therefore, it's caught up in the realm of language.

>>1769768

Thiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssss so much. We focus on language as words and writing, but its only part of it. Like how most people can't appreciate silence, they just HAVE to speak. There's more to expression people, appreciate how much you can shape the world. We are gods.

>>1769768
Playing and music are actions - the other guy was asserting that 'our concept of language determines how well we express our thoughts,' as if we could even HAVE thoughts unless we had some language, either symbolic or verbal, to express them in.

>>1769775

i just listened to the cars passing outside my window. i did not form words while i did this.

woooow magic

YFW Piraha people in the Amazon can't count to three because their language lacks the concept of "number."

>>1769780

what language is the thought in that i am expressing in when i improvise on guitar with someone?

>>1769778
If there is no English equivalent for 'tosca,' then NO, an English speaker would have never experienced that feeling of 'tosca' - because that feeling is bound up in such a specific way with ideas and cultural connotations that we could never grasp. We may have experienced something that is VERY, VERY close to 'tosca,' something with a different name, but it would conjure up different connections - therefore it would be a different emotion, however slight that difference.

By this reasoning, though, no single word could ever capture a uniform emotion - the 'joy' you feel would be completely different from the 'joy' I feel, because the personal connotations are different. This is common sense.

>>1769776

i was asking an honest question. i thought you were proposing chomsky's ideas and the SWhypothesis as answers to OP's question. if not, okay.

Eskimos have 25 different words for 'white.'

>>1769775
>Implying you can't think without words.

Yes, it is impossible to think about many higher philosophical things without putting words to them, but it is possible to think in images. Have you ever been right about something, but you couldn't argue your point because you couldn't find the words to explain your thinking? If thoughts were so rooted in language it would be impossible for that to happen to you because in order to conceive of that thought, you would also need to know all of the words to go along with it.

>>1769775
ever watched yourself make a sign?

It goes both ways, like a feedback loop. Our thoughts help to determine our language, while our language in turn affects our thoughts.

Very intersting NYT article on this very subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Guy%20Deutscher&a
mp;st=cse

>>1769787

right. words are just equivalencies of emotions. not the emotions themselves. thank you for making my point.

also, if you can prove that what you said about me not being able to experience 'tosca', i'll give you a cookie.

>>1769787
>that feeling is bound up in such a specific way with ideas and cultural connotations that we could never grasp

>asians and negroids will never be capable of grasping the ideas and cultural connotations that constitute the superior european master race

at first I thought what you were saying might be a little racist with all this stuff about inscrutable japs but hey I guess that works both ways right

>>1769794

no, they don't. they have a language where they can construct new words easily out of lots of small denotative syllables, which isn't nearly the same thing.

i know everyone thinks they do, though.

absolutely ridiculous.


now, suppose i didn't make this post and simply left the thread without saying anything. what is the difference between what i think of this thread and what the other me thinks of this thread?

>>1769796

this, also.

>>1769794
Implying English language doesn't have at least 25 words for 'white'

>>1769794
isn't it 'snow'?

>>1769794
>>1769816
>>1769819

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_languages#Morphology_and_syntax

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2009/10/23/embodied-cognition/

>"As strange as this is going to sound, people think in metaphors – words like warm and cold, fast and slow, bright and dark. These words mean two things. Cold can be a physical sensation, but also a mood, demeanor or style. Dark can describe a shade of color, or the way a song sounds."

Basically talks about how words themselves change our thoughts based on the metaphors they're attached to.

>>1769801

sorry, that should be "prove what you said"

The answer is yes. Language controls our thoughts, to an extent. That's what language is, a form, like a sonnet or haiku. You can still express complicated emotions and ideas within the form, but how you say it, and how you think about it, is controlled by the form.

>>1769831

unless you use a non-syntactic structure, like the creation of music or visual art, to express those emotions.

>>1769833
if it was non-syntactic how would it be possible for us to make sense of it. assuming it was non-syntacic to begin with

>>1769837

that's an excellent question.

also, i see what you're saying: there may be a syntax. but if it's there, it seems very, very flexible, and accommodating toward violation.

>>1769842
>>1769837

does everything have a syntax? do sunsets have a syntax?

everything is organized in the way that it's organized, i suppose. this sort of becomes meaningless if we take it away from the more rigid idea of syntax associated with language.

"soft syntax" ?

hmm.

>>1769783
kind of like how computers can't count to 3 because they deal in binaries amirite

>>1769852

i lold

>>1769837
>how do you make sense of pain etc etc.

at this point you are interrogating your introspective faculty and nothing else.

>>1769855
put scary metaphysical quotes around introspective if that's your thing

>>1769852
II

whoa, I just blew my own mind

>>1769858
you are welcome

>>1769855

nicely done

>>1769855
>at this point you are interrogating your introspective faculty and nothing else.
as opposed to?

>>1769865
perception, apperception, appappapperception etc

we are here taking into account the ontological "turn" that is constituted by taking a passive, receptive stance as opposed to an active, "holding the experience in review" stance.

>>1769868
this stuff is too complicated, but it's basically special relativity for philosophy.