3 ms·

A concept that's specific to the English language is probably a rather idiosyncratic disjunction of properties and not worth writing philosophy papers about. E.

A concept that's specific to the English language is probably a rather idiosyncratic disjunction of properties and not worth writing philosophy papers about. E.g. German has no proper translation for "creepy", we would use different words for various cases described by it. It's like thinking there is some global concept "can" that includes both "being able to" and "being allowed to", just because in the English language "can" can express both. Chances are, it's just an ambiguous word.

geraldhh 3y ago
nope, "can" states ability, "may" permission
- cubefox 3y ago
  "You can't do that" = You are not allowed to do that
  - trelane 3y ago
    Sort of? It's along the lines of "Das kannst Du hier nicht machen!" it's sort of a metaphor. Yes, technically there's no physical impediment, but the social ones are high. If you want to speak to the social / political impossibility, you use "can." If you want to speak to the fact that it's forbidden by authority, you say "allowed."
    - cubefox 3y ago
      It's still ambiguous. There are (at least) two possible interpretations, which means it isn't the same concept. Same for "creepy", it is used to refer to quite different things.
  - geraldhh 3y ago
    Colloquialisms mustn't be taken literally
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deaddodo 3y ago
> A concept that's specific to the English language is probably a rather idiosyncratic disjunction of properties and not worth writing philosophy papers about. Sure it does. To English speakers/linguists it could have a ton of reason to exist. In the same way a paper on wanderlust or schadenfreude would be useful to contextualize a realized phenomenon and how culture/language reflects that. This specific paper has no reason to exist because it is simply bad, however. > E.g. German has no proper translation for "creepy", we would use different words for various cases described by it. Do you think creepy is the universal word for an unnerving feeling in English? There's "menacing", "sinister", "eerie", "ominous", "macabre", "ghoulish", "distasteful", "repugnant", "offensive", "cloying", "odious", etc, etc, etc. All with different subtleties to their implications. The fact that German lacks a word for something has no effect on the lexicon of another language. > It's like thinking there is some global concept "can" that includes both "being able to" and "being allowed to", just because in the English language "can" can express both. Chances are, it's just an ambiguous word. The difference is cultural contextualization. English defers more to the agents in discussion to defer meaning. There are multiple words that all express a functionally equivalent meaning of "to be able": "can" (capability), "might" (desirability), "ought" (necessity), "may" (permissive), "able" (strictly neutral), etc; but each is used in a context that grants it more specified meaning.

geraldhh 3y ago

nope, "can" states ability, "may" permission

cubefox 3y ago
"You can't do that" = You are not allowed to do that
- trelane 3y ago
  Sort of? It's along the lines of "Das kannst Du hier nicht machen!" it's sort of a metaphor. Yes, technically there's no physical impediment, but the social ones are high. If you want to speak to the social / political impossibility, you use "can." If you want to speak to the fact that it's forbidden by authority, you say "allowed."
  - cubefox 3y ago
    It's still ambiguous. There are (at least) two possible interpretations, which means it isn't the same concept. Same for "creepy", it is used to refer to quite different things.
- geraldhh 3y ago
  Colloquialisms mustn't be taken literally
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deaddodo 3y ago

> A concept that's specific to the English language is probably a rather idiosyncratic disjunction of properties and not worth writing philosophy papers about. Sure it does. To English speakers/linguists it could have a ton of reason to exist. In the same way a paper on wanderlust or schadenfreude would be useful to contextualize a realized phenomenon and how culture/language reflects that. This specific paper has no reason to exist because it is simply bad, however. > E.g. German has no proper translation for "creepy", we would use different words for various cases described by it. Do you think creepy is the universal word for an unnerving feeling in English? There's "menacing", "sinister", "eerie", "ominous", "macabre", "ghoulish", "distasteful", "repugnant", "offensive", "cloying", "odious", etc, etc, etc. All with different subtleties to their implications. The fact that German lacks a word for something has no effect on the lexicon of another language. > It's like thinking there is some global concept "can" that includes both "being able to" and "being allowed to", just because in the English language "can" can express both. Chances are, it's just an ambiguous word. The difference is cultural contextualization. English defers more to the agents in discussion to defer meaning. There are multiple words that all express a functionally equivalent meaning of "to be able": "can" (capability), "might" (desirability), "ought" (necessity), "may" (permissive), "able" (strictly neutral), etc; but each is used in a context that grants it more specified meaning.