3 ms·

When discussing linguistic issues, it's best to use linguistic theory and terminology, rather than misleading analogies to software development. What you are pr

When discussing linguistic issues, it's best to use linguistic theory and terminology, rather than misleading analogies to software development. What you are propounding is a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language structure (such as lexical rules which allow free construction of compound nouns) somehow influences or constrains cognitive processes. Among the linguistics community, it is widely accepted that there is very little evidence for this relativistic view, and it has been largely rejected. The author of the article is obviously not aware of any of this, and doesn't care. He is writing without concern for the truth status of what he is saying, his aim is only for attention. This is the very definition of bullshit according to the philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt in his essay "On Bullshit": "It is just this lack of connection to a concern with the truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit".

coldtea 7y ago
>When discussing linguistic issues, it's best to use linguistic theory and terminology, rather than misleading analogies to software development. What you are propounding is a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language structure (such as lexical rules which allow free construction of compound nouns) somehow influences or constrains cognitive processes. No, I'm saying a much more basic, and widely accepted, undisputed even, thing: if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better and can refer to it more readily than people whose language lacks the term (and can only describe the notion with different ad-hoc phrases). That's essentially what language does, even for native speakers. Captures things (nouns), sentiments, ideas, etc, to communicate them. If a language lacks a term akin to "kawaii" then its people don't have immediate access to that notion the way Japanese have. They could say "cute" but it doesn't cut it, or they could explain it with one or more phrases. But still the person hearing it and the person expressing it would have mismatches etc. Whereas for a Japanese it's already a preset cultural notion. I'm not saying that having such a term or having a syntax structured in such a way, makes the Japanese to thing this or that way, or affects how they think. I'm saying that having a work for a phenomenon means you can refer to the phenomenon directly versus not having one, and people will immediately understanding what you mean.
- deanjones 7y ago
  > No, I'm saying a much more basic, and widely accepted, undisputed even, thing: if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better and can refer to it more readily than people whose language lacks the term (and can only describe the notion with different ad-hoc phrases). Firstly, do you have any evidence for the claim that, if a language has a specific term for a concept, speakers of that language understand that concept better than speakers of languages that require more than one term to describe the concept? I am genuinely interested in references to the studies you have read which demonstrate this. Secondly, you contradict yourself. The following statements are inconsistent: 1. "if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better" 2. "I'm not saying that having such a term or having a syntax structured in such a way, makes the Japanese to thing (sic) this or that way, or affects how they think." Either having a specific term for a concept allows better understanding of it (which obviously "affects how they think") or not.

coldtea 7y ago

>When discussing linguistic issues, it's best to use linguistic theory and terminology, rather than misleading analogies to software development. What you are propounding is a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language structure (such as lexical rules which allow free construction of compound nouns) somehow influences or constrains cognitive processes. No, I'm saying a much more basic, and widely accepted, undisputed even, thing: if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better and can refer to it more readily than people whose language lacks the term (and can only describe the notion with different ad-hoc phrases). That's essentially what language does, even for native speakers. Captures things (nouns), sentiments, ideas, etc, to communicate them. If a language lacks a term akin to "kawaii" then its people don't have immediate access to that notion the way Japanese have. They could say "cute" but it doesn't cut it, or they could explain it with one or more phrases. But still the person hearing it and the person expressing it would have mismatches etc. Whereas for a Japanese it's already a preset cultural notion. I'm not saying that having such a term or having a syntax structured in such a way, makes the Japanese to thing this or that way, or affects how they think. I'm saying that having a work for a phenomenon means you can refer to the phenomenon directly versus not having one, and people will immediately understanding what you mean.

deanjones 7y ago
> No, I'm saying a much more basic, and widely accepted, undisputed even, thing: if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better and can refer to it more readily than people whose language lacks the term (and can only describe the notion with different ad-hoc phrases). Firstly, do you have any evidence for the claim that, if a language has a specific term for a concept, speakers of that language understand that concept better than speakers of languages that require more than one term to describe the concept? I am genuinely interested in references to the studies you have read which demonstrate this. Secondly, you contradict yourself. The following statements are inconsistent: 1. "if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better" 2. "I'm not saying that having such a term or having a syntax structured in such a way, makes the Japanese to thing (sic) this or that way, or affects how they think." Either having a specific term for a concept allows better understanding of it (which obviously "affects how they think") or not.