5 ms·

> Why does it have to be so complicated? I know nothing about Japanese, or Chinese. (Edit: actually that's not true, I learned this today [0]) Maybe a little

> Why does it have to be so complicated? I know nothing about Japanese, or Chinese. (Edit: actually that's not true, I learned this today [0]) Maybe a little about language in general from studying linguistics (for compilers), but I think the answer to your question is; Because it is able to express things that we can't in English. That is beautiful, necessary and precious. The fact that groups of people exist in the world who can have whole ideas and worldviews that we barely conceive or express at all, seems so valuable. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40119457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40119457

stickfigure 2y ago
I don't buy this at all. Maybe "can't express as concisely".
- bluepizza 2y ago
  Exactly. Japanese _mostly_ doesn't have plurals in the English sense (it actually does have a few plural words), but you do use counters to specify quantities, which is just another way to express plurality. I understand some folks might find the Japanese exotic ways gripping, but I find the realities of the language much more interesting. I find the thought "there are many ways to express plurality" much more fascinating than "wow, these people can build very reliable cars without expressing if a car has a wheel or many wheels."
  - geraldwhen 2y ago
    車は車輪がよぅつあります。 Car has 4 wheels. You can say many, few, a number, etc so the lack of plurality is overstated I suspect. You can use context to derive the plurality when none is given.
- ropejumper 2y ago
  My favorite simple example of this is exclusive "we". It's not a thing in most languages, but it allows a level of passive aggressiveness that you can't achieve without it. Saying "we're going without you" isn't nearly as impactful as "_we_ are going", using a hypothetical exclusive we. As another example, Romanian has a relatively unique "presumptive" verb mood, which has a certain connotation that's hard to achieve without it. It can show curiosity and resignment at the same time (besides other things.) The conciseness is the whole point. Using words to explicitly describe things can ruin the effect.
  - eszed 2y ago
    I'd push back on that, because you do get that passive-voice exclusive "we" in English, just as concisely - except it's expressed through stress pattern (as you indicate with your underlines), not vocabulary / grammar. I think that's exciting, because it gives English (as written) a lot of poetic ambiguity and (as spoken) a lot of performative - if you will - flexibility.
    - ropejumper 2y ago
      Fair point! I think it's just a different way of expression, and both are valuable in their own way.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  Why not "unable to express at all"? Maybe you prefer the "languages are like Turing complete" argument? You've heard of Russell's paradox and Godel's incompleteness, I am sure. Wouldn't a concept that escaped our capacity, be by definition unthinkable? Someone literally can't think of an example. So maybe we should approach it a different way - is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? If concepts exist only in the mind, that are more than literal depictions of physical reality, surely here must be conceits thinkable in some systems but not in others. (I am probably just replaying Douglas Hofstadter here) The alternative is that every language is kinda "complete" and I could spend three hours trying to explain what a Alpha-Centurion has one word for. Edit: sorry our discussion is getting down-voted for bizarre reasons. Is there a kind of racist/anti-pluralist thing here on HN?
  - hnfong 2y ago
    Russell's paradox speaks of logical contradictions. Language is full of logical contradictions, but it's fine to us (not to logicians though). Similarly Gödel speaks of consistent proofs in logical systems. His incompleteness theorem talks about either a system has statements it cannot prove (but they can expressed!), or is inconsistent. Since natural language is probably not that consistent, the whole issue is moot. It should be possible to show under some loose conditions that all natural languages are "Turing complete". Even the halting problem does not impose a problem -- we're really not interested in telling whether long-running computation halts in natural language. The expressivity is guaranteed by not insisting on strict consistency in language. (PS: the situation changes where there is a mandate to only speak things that are "correct", for example, censorship. Now you get into the realm where something might be technically "correct" but the decision algorithm is imperfect and does not allow you to speak that truth) > is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? I don't think so as long as the concept is constructed from physical objects or shared emotions/feelings. There is a problem with something that can only be subjectively felt though. Let's say some alien can see the X-ray spectrum. How does the alien communicate to humans what the colors look and feel like? But this is kinda off-topic.
eloisant 2y ago
This is true for every language, you can never perfectly translate a text. Something is always lost.
- brabel 2y ago
  I've studied translation and what was fascinating to me was all the terminology that a language uses that's totally linked to the culture in which it's used. For example, in Brazilian Portuguese, someone may say something like "show de bola" (literal translation: "ball show" using the borrow English word "show" for something like "great performance") even in seemingly completely unrelated context, like when you do well on your math homework :D. Because football parlance is ingrained so deep into the collective mind of the population that you can "transfer" what would normally describe a fantastic play by a football team to pretty much any other context you like. I know Americans have a similar relationship with baseball-specific words, right (not a native speaker so I won't try to give examples)? That's one of the biggest difficulties when trying to translate... how would you translate that to English? You may need to use a similarly local "slang", which requires you to know where the target audience is from exactly (USA - East / West coast?? -, UK - London, Manchester? -, Australia??) to do it justice... and even the ideal translation may need to even consider recent (and not so recent) events and local customs/sensitivities (an obvious example is words to describe races in the USA) and pop references.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >I know Americans have a similar relationship with baseball-specific words, right It's true, there are a bunch of American idioms related to baseball. What's funny about this, however, is that baseball isn't very popular in America these days (American football and basketball are much more popular, and I think even hockey is now more popular), but baseball is actually quite popular in Japan.
  - olddustytrail 2y ago
    > know Americans have a similar relationship with baseball-specific words, right I'm not American either but a fairly obvious example is to "knock it out of the park".
rauljordan2020 2y ago
My point is that it doesn't need to be. Chinese is concise, simple, single pronunciation per character, very little grammar. It has no need for verb conjugations, tense markers, 3 different writing systems super-imposed into one like Japanese does, and can still express highly sophisticated thoughts and meaning that English cannot

stickfigure 2y ago

I don't buy this at all. Maybe "can't express as concisely".

bluepizza 2y ago
Exactly. Japanese _mostly_ doesn't have plurals in the English sense (it actually does have a few plural words), but you do use counters to specify quantities, which is just another way to express plurality. I understand some folks might find the Japanese exotic ways gripping, but I find the realities of the language much more interesting. I find the thought "there are many ways to express plurality" much more fascinating than "wow, these people can build very reliable cars without expressing if a car has a wheel or many wheels."
- geraldwhen 2y ago
  車は車輪がよぅつあります。 Car has 4 wheels. You can say many, few, a number, etc so the lack of plurality is overstated I suspect. You can use context to derive the plurality when none is given.
ropejumper 2y ago
My favorite simple example of this is exclusive "we". It's not a thing in most languages, but it allows a level of passive aggressiveness that you can't achieve without it. Saying "we're going without you" isn't nearly as impactful as "_we_ are going", using a hypothetical exclusive we. As another example, Romanian has a relatively unique "presumptive" verb mood, which has a certain connotation that's hard to achieve without it. It can show curiosity and resignment at the same time (besides other things.) The conciseness is the whole point. Using words to explicitly describe things can ruin the effect.
- eszed 2y ago
  I'd push back on that, because you do get that passive-voice exclusive "we" in English, just as concisely - except it's expressed through stress pattern (as you indicate with your underlines), not vocabulary / grammar. I think that's exciting, because it gives English (as written) a lot of poetic ambiguity and (as spoken) a lot of performative - if you will - flexibility.
  - ropejumper 2y ago
    Fair point! I think it's just a different way of expression, and both are valuable in their own way.
nonrandomstring 2y ago
Why not "unable to express at all"? Maybe you prefer the "languages are like Turing complete" argument? You've heard of Russell's paradox and Godel's incompleteness, I am sure. Wouldn't a concept that escaped our capacity, be by definition unthinkable? Someone literally can't think of an example. So maybe we should approach it a different way - is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? If concepts exist only in the mind, that are more than literal depictions of physical reality, surely here must be conceits thinkable in some systems but not in others. (I am probably just replaying Douglas Hofstadter here) The alternative is that every language is kinda "complete" and I could spend three hours trying to explain what a Alpha-Centurion has one word for. Edit: sorry our discussion is getting down-voted for bizarre reasons. Is there a kind of racist/anti-pluralist thing here on HN?
- hnfong 2y ago
  Russell's paradox speaks of logical contradictions. Language is full of logical contradictions, but it's fine to us (not to logicians though). Similarly Gödel speaks of consistent proofs in logical systems. His incompleteness theorem talks about either a system has statements it cannot prove (but they can expressed!), or is inconsistent. Since natural language is probably not that consistent, the whole issue is moot. It should be possible to show under some loose conditions that all natural languages are "Turing complete". Even the halting problem does not impose a problem -- we're really not interested in telling whether long-running computation halts in natural language. The expressivity is guaranteed by not insisting on strict consistency in language. (PS: the situation changes where there is a mandate to only speak things that are "correct", for example, censorship. Now you get into the realm where something might be technically "correct" but the decision algorithm is imperfect and does not allow you to speak that truth) > is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? I don't think so as long as the concept is constructed from physical objects or shared emotions/feelings. There is a problem with something that can only be subjectively felt though. Let's say some alien can see the X-ray spectrum. How does the alien communicate to humans what the colors look and feel like? But this is kinda off-topic.

eloisant 2y ago

This is true for every language, you can never perfectly translate a text. Something is always lost.

brabel 2y ago
I've studied translation and what was fascinating to me was all the terminology that a language uses that's totally linked to the culture in which it's used. For example, in Brazilian Portuguese, someone may say something like "show de bola" (literal translation: "ball show" using the borrow English word "show" for something like "great performance") even in seemingly completely unrelated context, like when you do well on your math homework :D. Because football parlance is ingrained so deep into the collective mind of the population that you can "transfer" what would normally describe a fantastic play by a football team to pretty much any other context you like. I know Americans have a similar relationship with baseball-specific words, right (not a native speaker so I won't try to give examples)? That's one of the biggest difficulties when trying to translate... how would you translate that to English? You may need to use a similarly local "slang", which requires you to know where the target audience is from exactly (USA - East / West coast?? -, UK - London, Manchester? -, Australia??) to do it justice... and even the ideal translation may need to even consider recent (and not so recent) events and local customs/sensitivities (an obvious example is words to describe races in the USA) and pop references.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >I know Americans have a similar relationship with baseball-specific words, right It's true, there are a bunch of American idioms related to baseball. What's funny about this, however, is that baseball isn't very popular in America these days (American football and basketball are much more popular, and I think even hockey is now more popular), but baseball is actually quite popular in Japan.
- olddustytrail 2y ago
  > know Americans have a similar relationship with baseball-specific words, right I'm not American either but a fairly obvious example is to "knock it out of the park".

rauljordan2020 2y ago

My point is that it doesn't need to be. Chinese is concise, simple, single pronunciation per character, very little grammar. It has no need for verb conjugations, tense markers, 3 different writing systems super-imposed into one like Japanese does, and can still express highly sophisticated thoughts and meaning that English cannot