5 ms·

I'd like to chime in on 9nGQluzmnq3M's side here -- I had exactly the same reaction for exactly the same reason. It does Japan's complex culture a complete diss

I'd like to chime in on 9nGQluzmnq3M's side here -- I had exactly the same reaction for exactly the same reason. It does Japan's complex culture a complete disservice to wrap it up in a neat package of "exotic" and "ineffable." You wouldn't accept an analysis of fine wine, a new medication, or graphics cards from someone who didn't bother to learn about them, so why is an analysis of an entire culture from an equally ignorant standpoint acceptable? Is it acceptable because "being an outsider" gives him a more "objective" viewpoint? So, his ignorance gives birth to wisdom? Or is it acceptable because Japan has a history of being labeled "ineffable" and "exotic," meaning that nobody not Japanese can ever understand Japanese culture, so anyone can say whatever they want? Anyone who starts claiming that there's a connection between "numbers of meanings [e.g. ways to translate a word into ANOTHER language]" and culture immediately starts setting off alarms in my head, but the Language Log sums that up much better than I ever could: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1088 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1088

henrikschroder 7y ago
That's a fantastic link! I love all the hilarious historical examples where some author claims that having only specialized words for a group of related concepts means your language is dumb for not having a word for the general concept, and having only a general word for a group of concepts means your language is dumb for not having specialized. Heads I win, tails you lose!
xelxebar 7y ago
I certainly get the sentiment. However, my reaction to 9nGQluzmnq3M's coment is mainly this: Why judge an article or opinion on what it's not instead of what it is? In this particular case, the article reads to me like someone sharing their emotions and feelings, achieved by contempaling some minutiae of experience in Japan. Does that explicate an experience that generalizes? Apparently not, but this certainly seems like a different matter. Put a bit extremely, the article is also a pretty terrible recipe for turducken. I doubt many would flay the article for this failing, but the point is that judging an article or opinion's failings says just as much about the reader's personal expectations as it does anything else. Pretend for a moment that the article was written in the form of a poem. I seriously doubt it'd be getting the same kickback for "lack of objectivity." I would guess this is because we culturally learn to approach written language with different expectations, based on the form of its presentation. Heck, I'd not be surprised to even see some interesting anthropological theses on this very phenomenon. Anyway, winding back the meta-levels a bit, I do get where the author is coming from, myself having lived in Japan for ten years. It's possible to find poetry or meaning in certain minutiae of daily experience, and when thinking in Japanese I certainly do interpret, feel, and use silence differently than when my brain goes into English mode. Think for a moment about the "magic" of watching a Good ol' American Superbolw game with your friends and family, or how about drinking at Ye Olde pub down the road with yer mates. The experience is singular in a way to the particular culture it's in, and after accumulating many memories of this experience, it's common for those memories to achieve some "special" emotional quality that's diffilut to transfer to others who haven't done the same. I read the original article as an attempt to share some similar kind of feeling.
- sdrothrock 7y ago
  > However, my reaction to 9nGQluzmnq3M's coment is mainly this: Why judge an article or opinion on what it's not instead of what it is? To me, I'm judging the article based on what it's claiming to be. He starts it with a faux linguistic analysis including numbers, faux cultural comparisons, and an analysis of the Japanese language -- which he professes not to know. > I read the original article as an attempt to share some similar kind of feeling. The way he opened his article and continued trying to pick at linguistics is what kept me from feeling that kind of thing. His own credentials and the location of the article also contributed to that. If it were a personal blog and he were talking about subjective feelings, that's one thing -- but when he is writing an article on lithub and starting with numbers and apparently scholarly linguistic analysis, that's a completely different thing to me. Edit to add: And one other point is that this is all to publicize a book of his called "A Beginner's Guide to Japan," which sounds very authoritative.
  - xelxebar 7y ago
    > To me, I'm judging the article based on what it's claiming to be. Rather what you, the reader, are judging it to claim to be. > He starts it with a faux linguistic analysis including numbers, faux cultural comparisons, and an analysis of the Japanese language -- which he professes not to know. There's a lot of flexing that goes on with expats here in Japan. Whoever speaks the best Japanese has the most social cred in many ways. Nonetheless, speaking a languages and performing linguistic analyses on the same are quite different tasks that require less overlapping skills than one might imagine at first blush. Are you a linguist in Japanese? If not, then why does your opinion on his linguistic analysis matter? Are you an anthropologist on modern Japan? If not, then what are your credentials for judging his ability to make "cultural comparisons?" Those are intended as rhetorical questions. I dunno. Your and 9nGQluzmnq3M's comments just stike me as meta-inconsistent. I'm trying to inject a little self-awareness into the discussion. In particular 9nGQluzmnq3M's comments about the Japanese language don't line up with my own experience, having used it as the primary language in my personal and professional life for several years. Someone with only a beginning grasp of Japanese flaying someone else with a tad less Japanese; that just strikes me as... harmful.

henrikschroder 7y ago

That's a fantastic link! I love all the hilarious historical examples where some author claims that having only specialized words for a group of related concepts means your language is dumb for not having a word for the general concept, and having only a general word for a group of concepts means your language is dumb for not having specialized. Heads I win, tails you lose!

xelxebar 7y ago

I certainly get the sentiment. However, my reaction to 9nGQluzmnq3M's coment is mainly this: Why judge an article or opinion on what it's not instead of what it is? In this particular case, the article reads to me like someone sharing their emotions and feelings, achieved by contempaling some minutiae of experience in Japan. Does that explicate an experience that generalizes? Apparently not, but this certainly seems like a different matter. Put a bit extremely, the article is also a pretty terrible recipe for turducken. I doubt many would flay the article for this failing, but the point is that judging an article or opinion's failings says just as much about the reader's personal expectations as it does anything else. Pretend for a moment that the article was written in the form of a poem. I seriously doubt it'd be getting the same kickback for "lack of objectivity." I would guess this is because we culturally learn to approach written language with different expectations, based on the form of its presentation. Heck, I'd not be surprised to even see some interesting anthropological theses on this very phenomenon. Anyway, winding back the meta-levels a bit, I do get where the author is coming from, myself having lived in Japan for ten years. It's possible to find poetry or meaning in certain minutiae of daily experience, and when thinking in Japanese I certainly do interpret, feel, and use silence differently than when my brain goes into English mode. Think for a moment about the "magic" of watching a Good ol' American Superbolw game with your friends and family, or how about drinking at Ye Olde pub down the road with yer mates. The experience is singular in a way to the particular culture it's in, and after accumulating many memories of this experience, it's common for those memories to achieve some "special" emotional quality that's diffilut to transfer to others who haven't done the same. I read the original article as an attempt to share some similar kind of feeling.

sdrothrock 7y ago
> However, my reaction to 9nGQluzmnq3M's coment is mainly this: Why judge an article or opinion on what it's not instead of what it is? To me, I'm judging the article based on what it's claiming to be. He starts it with a faux linguistic analysis including numbers, faux cultural comparisons, and an analysis of the Japanese language -- which he professes not to know. > I read the original article as an attempt to share some similar kind of feeling. The way he opened his article and continued trying to pick at linguistics is what kept me from feeling that kind of thing. His own credentials and the location of the article also contributed to that. If it were a personal blog and he were talking about subjective feelings, that's one thing -- but when he is writing an article on lithub and starting with numbers and apparently scholarly linguistic analysis, that's a completely different thing to me. Edit to add: And one other point is that this is all to publicize a book of his called "A Beginner's Guide to Japan," which sounds very authoritative.
- xelxebar 7y ago
  > To me, I'm judging the article based on what it's claiming to be. Rather what you, the reader, are judging it to claim to be. > He starts it with a faux linguistic analysis including numbers, faux cultural comparisons, and an analysis of the Japanese language -- which he professes not to know. There's a lot of flexing that goes on with expats here in Japan. Whoever speaks the best Japanese has the most social cred in many ways. Nonetheless, speaking a languages and performing linguistic analyses on the same are quite different tasks that require less overlapping skills than one might imagine at first blush. Are you a linguist in Japanese? If not, then why does your opinion on his linguistic analysis matter? Are you an anthropologist on modern Japan? If not, then what are your credentials for judging his ability to make "cultural comparisons?" Those are intended as rhetorical questions. I dunno. Your and 9nGQluzmnq3M's comments just stike me as meta-inconsistent. I'm trying to inject a little self-awareness into the discussion. In particular 9nGQluzmnq3M's comments about the Japanese language don't line up with my own experience, having used it as the primary language in my personal and professional life for several years. Someone with only a beginning grasp of Japanese flaying someone else with a tad less Japanese; that just strikes me as... harmful.