3 ms·

> the "take-it-in-the-ass", is a distinct Sicilian word, and can only be fully understood if you take into account Sicilian culture at that time This is precis

> the "take-it-in-the-ass", is a distinct Sicilian word, and can only be fully understood if you take into account Sicilian culture at that time This is precisely the sort of nuance that everyone who is not Sicilian would understand if the author had written in a global language that 100% of the world's population understands natively. I said that language is not equivalent to culture. You said that language is a part of a culture. We both agree. I want everyone to have access to all of culture. For every nuance of 1950's Sicilian culture we lose, we gain a complete understanding of the meaning behind every word from every author for the rest of civilization. I'm saying the trade-off is well worth it.

wahern 6y ago
> global language Global dialects have very little nuance or sophistication, English included. Though, it may be hard to realize that on a site like HN where those who use English as a second language also tend to be well-versed in American English, not to mention highly educated. Have you ever heard young people speaking Singlish (Singapore) or Hinglish (India) in informal settings? I have and it's immediately obvious that I'm missing alot of nuance, and conversely (despite the high education and familiarity with American culture of the listener) I've learned to be careful with my Americanisms lest they be taken the wrong way. Heck, even in the U.S. there are different forms of sarcasm and irony, both across geographic regions but also, most clearly, social strata. Or compare American English across time. Written American English from 200+ years ago seems facially clear, but just because it seems clear doesn't mean we're not blind to various nuances. Likewise for just 100 or even 50 years ago--contemporaneous culture is encoded in the interstices at least as much as its encoded literally. The reason global dialects lack nuance is precisely because you can't dissociate culture from language, and local cultures will tend to be richer as they can evolve faster and more independently. Global dialects have to take a least common denominator approach, not only in their grammar and diction but in the shared experiences they reflect.

wahern 6y ago

> global language Global dialects have very little nuance or sophistication, English included. Though, it may be hard to realize that on a site like HN where those who use English as a second language also tend to be well-versed in American English, not to mention highly educated. Have you ever heard young people speaking Singlish (Singapore) or Hinglish (India) in informal settings? I have and it's immediately obvious that I'm missing alot of nuance, and conversely (despite the high education and familiarity with American culture of the listener) I've learned to be careful with my Americanisms lest they be taken the wrong way. Heck, even in the U.S. there are different forms of sarcasm and irony, both across geographic regions but also, most clearly, social strata. Or compare American English across time. Written American English from 200+ years ago seems facially clear, but just because it seems clear doesn't mean we're not blind to various nuances. Likewise for just 100 or even 50 years ago--contemporaneous culture is encoded in the interstices at least as much as its encoded literally. The reason global dialects lack nuance is precisely because you can't dissociate culture from language, and local cultures will tend to be richer as they can evolve faster and more independently. Global dialects have to take a least common denominator approach, not only in their grammar and diction but in the shared experiences they reflect.