2 ms·
The strict interpretation of Sapir-Whorf, where language determines thought, is obviously nonsense. But the weak interpretation of Sapir-Whorf, where language m
by kibwen 3y ago
The strict interpretation of Sapir-Whorf, where language determines thought, is obviously nonsense. But the weak interpretation of Sapir-Whorf, where language merely influences thought to at least some degree, is obviously true (which is why Sapir-Whorf is pretty useless as a statement either way). The fact that there are minute differences between language speakers is because language is highly malleable and very difficult to police, so speakers tend to alter their language specifically to make it easier to think about things that are important to them (in the same way that we as programmers restructure code and rename variables to make the program easier to understand). In addition, global human societies are connected enough that useful linguistic concepts are rapidly disseminated into every language.
- NemoNobody 3y agoEnglish now just catches all the other words that it doesn't have definitions for and brings them into the language. A lot of Buddhist terminology made it in this way in the 19th century bc English had no direct translation so they just gave the words English definitions, essentially adding them to language. Even if 100% of humans spoke English as their primary language, we would still have words like Dharma, samsara, nirvana etc. English will eventually take from every culture every word of significance without a direct translation - these words will be understood by their English definitions to the majority of the global population. We will still call that amalgamation of global languages English
- latency-guy2 3y ago[flagged]
- mistermann 3y agoDon't overlook that language is fundamental to the process of discovery of the "truth" here, as is culture. For example (of culture), if someone was to suggest we clean up our language while discussing the matter, the notion would be rejected absolutely.