3 ms·

> Having a distinct culture doesn't necessitate having a distinct language, but having an existing distinct culture in a specific language necessitates preservi

by jnky 10y ago

> Having a distinct culture doesn't necessitate having a distinct language, but having an existing distinct culture in a specific language necessitates preserving the language for preserving it I'm not saying other languages shouldn't be preserved. I'm saying there should be a standard language. I don't think that one precludes the other. > An english speaking China will be a very different culture Maybe, but why would that be worse (or better for that matter)? > And we haven't even mentioned the Shapir/Worf hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity That's an interesting point, but on the other hand I'm still not convinced that this means that having a lot of distinct languages is "better". While on the other hand, there would be clear benefits to everyone speaking the same language or having at least one common language. > You mean besides obliterating every existing culture and using it for parts? Isn't that what always happens with all culture as it evolves? > Everything that's wrong with monocultures of all kinds and singular ways of thinking and doing things [...] This is where I strongly disagree. I think that some things are tools for a specific purpose and should be standardized. Language is a tool to convey facts and ideas. I recognize that culture should not be standardized, of course.

jaeh 10y ago
do not forget the fact that different languages have different cultural concepts embedded in them. weltschmerz. schadenfreude. schmetterling. you simply can not say this word in english without explaining it. if you do not understand german you will also have a very hard time getting the emotion that is embedded into all of us german speakers when we hear those words. there are tons of examples like this in every language. i also personally think that learning german, english and russian was an enormous benefit to myself, some thoughts i think in english, some in german and very seldomly i even think in russian. the fact that i also think javascript, php, python and lots of other programming languages helps me even more to better be able to transpile my thoughts into words and actions. you can not articulate thoughts that you do not have words for. if society has less words, society has less variety of thought. it follows that, if you have less words, you have less variety of thought. in the end i think that instead of declaring a standard language or creating a new standard language (https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ anyone?) what will happen is that our currently used languages will merge into one language that is influenced heavily by all currently spoken languages. the situation will stay the same, most people will not be able to communicate efficiently, this is not the fault of language though.
- zirkonit 10y ago
  As a casual student of German, is there any context in “der Schmetterling” which is not translated as “the butterfly”?
  - jaeh 10y ago
    if you think about the butterfly effect, calling it schmetterlingseffekt just sounds way more badass :p but you are right, schmetter does not originate from "smasher" (as i and probably most german speakers assumed), but instead from "Schmetten", which means butter or cream. this also means that this word is translated perfectly, but the german word has a whole different meaning nowadays, i personally have never heard the word schmette. thanks for the motivation to look at this, feeling a bit smarter now and finally know why the schmetterling is called butterfly. :)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
escap 10y ago
>> the Shapir/Worf hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity >That's an interesting point, but on the other hand I'm still not convinced that this means that having a lot of distinct languages is "better". While on the other hand, there would be clear benefits to everyone speaking the same language or having at least one common language. Would the computer world be "better" if anyone standardize on one single programming language (e.g. java) or is it "better" that different languages are there, ( dartmouth basic , javascript, python, lisp, haskell or perl) so you can code differently ? As for the universal language, Esperanto tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto a nice documentary about it: http://esperantodocumentary.com/en/about-the-film http://esperantodocumentary.com/en/about-the-film

by jnky 10y ago

jaeh 10y ago

do not forget the fact that different languages have different cultural concepts embedded in them. weltschmerz. schadenfreude. schmetterling. you simply can not say this word in english without explaining it. if you do not understand german you will also have a very hard time getting the emotion that is embedded into all of us german speakers when we hear those words. there are tons of examples like this in every language. i also personally think that learning german, english and russian was an enormous benefit to myself, some thoughts i think in english, some in german and very seldomly i even think in russian. the fact that i also think javascript, php, python and lots of other programming languages helps me even more to better be able to transpile my thoughts into words and actions. you can not articulate thoughts that you do not have words for. if society has less words, society has less variety of thought. it follows that, if you have less words, you have less variety of thought. in the end i think that instead of declaring a standard language or creating a new standard language (https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ anyone?) what will happen is that our currently used languages will merge into one language that is influenced heavily by all currently spoken languages. the situation will stay the same, most people will not be able to communicate efficiently, this is not the fault of language though.

zirkonit 10y ago
As a casual student of German, is there any context in “der Schmetterling” which is not translated as “the butterfly”?
- jaeh 10y ago
  if you think about the butterfly effect, calling it schmetterlingseffekt just sounds way more badass :p but you are right, schmetter does not originate from "smasher" (as i and probably most german speakers assumed), but instead from "Schmetten", which means butter or cream. this also means that this word is translated perfectly, but the german word has a whole different meaning nowadays, i personally have never heard the word schmette. thanks for the motivation to look at this, feeling a bit smarter now and finally know why the schmetterling is called butterfly. :)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

escap 10y ago

>> the Shapir/Worf hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity >That's an interesting point, but on the other hand I'm still not convinced that this means that having a lot of distinct languages is "better". While on the other hand, there would be clear benefits to everyone speaking the same language or having at least one common language. Would the computer world be "better" if anyone standardize on one single programming language (e.g. java) or is it "better" that different languages are there, ( dartmouth basic , javascript, python, lisp, haskell or perl) so you can code differently ? As for the universal language, Esperanto tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto a nice documentary about it: http://esperantodocumentary.com/en/about-the-film http://esperantodocumentary.com/en/about-the-film