Stephen Fry - Planet Babel #2

alex73

Mod seems to have closed the thread ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056408464

What I found interesting:-

Well not to boast... But I am fluent in 6 Languages. My kids Speak 3 fluently and are all leaning a 4th Irish... Since we are not Irish Speakers at home but live in Ireland we think its important to have a good cultural background.

What I find hard to understand is that we make the effort to learn Irish, my Kids live the language, But many Irish-Irish born living here could not be bothered with it...

Anyway I thought the programme was excellent.

I suppose having lived in many other European Countries it is really sad to see that Irish is not used as a working Language in Ireland.

I suppose what I have up for discussion is a point that was made in the Documentary.. Does Language effect our way of thinking our Identity?

soterpisc

The reason why Ireland lost its national language (its practically dead among over 90% of population.) is due to following.

1. Political pressure not to make it officially spoken so the population would not be seen as backward.. Yes it was taught... but not properly (more like latin) and population did not use it. (like Latin)

2. There is a certain Irish Laziness about their culture.. Yes they are Irish.. they have pubs.. But when it comes down to the cold face of reality most Irish could not be bothered taking national pride to reviving their language. Its a very sad reality, Irish as a Language was spoken far more in 1916 than today. First President of Ireland (a protestant) happened to speak Irish far better than many Irish Catholics!. The language was alive!. Take Isreal who have to resurrect a language and its actively spoken today. Irish was a functioning formed language which has been let die.

There is no will to bring Irish back...Its kept alive in pockets in Ireland due to government funding.

Extremely sad for such an amazing language.


Its not just the Irish Language that died... But the Death of Irishness in many who call themselves Irish.

I would sum it up quoting:-

Cad a dhéanfaimid feasta gan adhmad,
tá deireadh na gcoillte ar lár;
níl trácht ar Chill Chais ná a teaghlach,
is ní bainfear a cling go bráth;
an áit úd ina gcónaíodh an deighbhean
a fuair gradam is meidhir thar mná,
bhíodh iarlaí ag tarraing thar toinn ann,
is an tAifreann binn á rá.

Wibbs

Israel and modern Hebrew had a very different background though. Mainly because Jewish settlers were coming from all over the world bringing with them different native languages and needed a common language to build the Israeli state. Not the case here. At the foundation of the state we already had the common language which was English. Irish was a much harder "sell" to the general population by comparison. Then throw in the oft daft policies aimed at reviving the language(and a lot of head in the sand thinking), both educational and political and we end up in the odd situation where we are today.

Mark Hamill

alex73 wrote: »

Well not to boast... But I am fluent in 6 Languages. My kids Speak 3 fluently and are all leaning a 4th Irish... Since we are not Irish Speakers at home but live in Ireland we think its important to have a good cultural background.

What do you mean "have a good cultural background"? How does being able to speak Irish mean "having a good cultural background" if very few Irish people do it?

alex73 wrote: »

What I find hard to understand is that we make the effort to learn Irish, my Kids live the language, But many Irish-Irish born living here could not be bothered with it...

Because its dead. The language you are learning now is not very like the Irish of 500 years ago, not because the language naturally evolved (like English has over the same time) but because it was repressed by the culture over that time. People dont care because its not really useful to learn a language which has no use.

alex73 wrote: »

I suppose what I have up for discussion is a point that was made in the Documentary.. Does Language effect our way of thinking our Identity?

For some people yes, for some no. For me that answer is no, as the language I speak is a fluke of where I was born, its importance is only in how useful it is (and English is a damn sight more useful than Irish). Language no more effects my identity than currency.

Wibbs

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What do you mean "have a good cultural background"? How does being able to speak Irish mean "having a good cultural background" if very few Irish people do it?

There is certainly an element to that, however by the same token it is a cultural marker for a section of the greater Irish culture and population, so on that score I'm glad it's not died out.

Because its dead. The language you are learning now is not very like the Irish of 500 years ago, not because the language naturally evolved (like English has over the same time) but because it was repressed by the culture over that time. People dont care because its not really useful to learn a language which has no use.

Again there is an element to that, but I'd add that as well as being oppressed by an "external" culture, it contracted as a language because of that. It contracted to quite a narrow section of Irish society. It became a "peasant" language for the real want of a better word. It ceased to be the language of larger commerce, higher education, engineering and science(and theology). At one point it was very much the language of such pursuits. Even though they were writing in Latin(and to a lesser extent Greek) the native language of those who brought much of the classical world back to the European continent was Irish.

That said a language like Basque which has seen a large revival, especially in Spain, was even more contracted than Irish. The Basque language has a remarkably limited vocabulary, but that hasn't stopped it coming back into popular culture(It's a great language for punk songs believe it or not ).

Irish could do the same, but and it's a big but, only if the larger population want it and it seems for all their talk, that talk remains as Bearla. The census a classic example. Going by that we should be hearing fluent Irish all over the place, yet we don't. It's an odd kinda lip service. "It's our language!!" we cry, yet few of us are anything even approaching fluent. Ditto for government interaction with the language since the foundation of the state. It can be quite surreal at times.

For some people yes, for some no. For me that answer is no, as the language I speak is a fluke of where I was born, its importance is only in how useful it is (and English is a damn sight more useful than Irish). Language no more effects my identity than currency.

I'd again somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Your(and mine) language is to a greater or lesser extent Hiberno English(and a chunk of that comes from Irish) and it does reflect and transmit a certain personal and cultural identity.

seenitall

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd again somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Your(and mine) language is to a greater or lesser extent Hiberno English(and a chunk of that comes from Irish) and it does reflect and transmit a certain personal and cultural identity.

Do you mean saying stuff like "I'm just after coming home" and that kind of crack?

As a foreigner living here, I think that's adorable, but I wouldn't go so far as to learn Irish. I have enough trouble maintaining the grasp on the few useful European languages that I (sort of) speak.

Mark Hamill

Wibbs wrote: »

That said a language like Basque which has seen a large revival, especially in Spain, was even more contracted than Irish. The Basque language has a remarkably limited vocabulary, but that hasn't stopped it coming back into popular culture(It's a great language for punk songs believe it or not ).

I'm actually surprised most pro-irish language enthusiasts dont point out how good it can be in music. The main (?) theme of the videogame Metal Gear Solid is in Irish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3iWfXHwJTo

Hauntingly beautiful song, imo.

Wibbs wrote: »

Irish could do the same, but and it's a big but, only if the larger population want it and it seems for all their talk, that talk remains as Bearla. The census a classic example. Going by that we should be hearing fluent Irish all over the place, yet we don't. It's an odd kinda lip service. "It's our language!!" we cry, yet few of us are anything even approaching fluent. Ditto for government interaction with the language since the foundation of the state. It can be quite surreal at times.

I have always found it bizarre that the government affords so much time to Irish in schools and yet teaches it in one of the worst ways possible. At primary level, its just learn by rote. At secondary level, they copy the largely useless English course, it in itself having little in relation to improving and expanding the use of the English language. If you want people to learn Irish (and, from the census, it seems like most people are happy with the idea of knowing Irish), then you need to saturate the curriculum with it.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd again somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Your(and mine) language is to a greater or lesser extent Hiberno English(and a chunk of that comes from Irish) and it does reflect and transmit a certain personal and cultural identity.

Tbh, I think that it depends on the person. Yes, the language I have always used is Hiberno English, but that doesn't make it part of my personal identity. I think that my personal identity is the thoughts and ideas I have, not the language used to express them. If I learned to speak another language, then that (by itself) wouldn't change the way I think, I would still be me.

I think people put too much importance into language (and culture, too). Its just a tool for transmitting ideas from person to person and it should live and die based on its efficiency, like any other tool.

Enkidu

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think people put too much importance into language (and culture, too). Its just a tool for transmitting ideas from person to person and it should live and die based on its efficiency, like any other tool.

This is isn't really related to Irish, but I'd just like to comment on this. I think your "just" pastes over what is actually going on. "Transmitting ideas from person to person" includes virtually all interpersonal contact between anybody ever. So if language is a tool for that, it is vastly important. A given language and culture also seems to have an effect on the kinds of ideas transmitted between people, since different languages frame ideas in different ways and different cultures even more so. Even in terms of transmitting ideas inside your own head, your language provides the basic syntax of those thoughts. Languages aren't an analogue of the same program encoded in C++ or Java.

If I learned to speak another language, then that (by itself) wouldn't change the way I think, I would still be me.

I speak a few languages and I have to say I strongly disagree with you. In fact I have only ever heard this sentiment from monoglots. Personally speaking I gravitate toward different modes of thought in each of my languages. This has long been folk knowledge among linguists, but in the last ten years a lot of experimental evidence is increasingly supporting it as neurological fact. References available if anybody wants them.

I think it would be interesting and useful for this thread to hear from somebody who is bicultural.

Wibbs

I've had a fair few bilingual and fluent in same exes(I'm barely lingual myself) and they all said they thought differently in different languages. The languages informed how they thought on a very low level. Like Enkidu said languages are defo not an analogue of the same program encoded in C++ or Java. There's remarkably little direct translation going on, even among languages of the same family. A Spanish speaker thinks in a subtly different way to say an German speaker.

Hell even within the same language. Someone who speaks American English compared to Hiberno English or Mancunian English or Mumbai English are all subtly different in tone, meaning and intent. EG Something like the word "bold" in Hiberno English. "He's being bold". If you're Irish you're thinking he's being naughty, but in other English variants it means something completely different and that something different makes different pathways in the mind. Same language, same word, yet different. Now ramp that up to a completely different language.

alex73

Enkidu wrote: »

I speak a few languages and I have to say I strongly disagree with you. In fact I have only ever heard this sentiment from monoglots. Personally speaking I gravitate toward different modes of thought in each of my languages. This has long been folk knowledge among linguists, but in the last ten years a lot of experimental evidence is increasingly supporting it as neurological fact. References available if anybody wants them.

I think it would be interesting and useful for this thread to hear from somebody who is bicultural.

So you are saying that if you speak 2 fluent languages that this does not help you learn a 3rd? That is not my experience. I picked up Polish a lot faster have already studied Russian, And Portuguese I learned in 6 months because I was already fluent in Spanish.

I remember a Spanish Professor would constantly say that Irish who knew Irish were miles ahead in linguistic ability that English who had no 2nd language. He was seeing the objective results.

However regardless of whether speaking Irish or not helps you learn a 3rd Language. Loosing Irish as a language in my view is sad reflection on Ireland.

Enkidu

alex73 wrote: »

So you are saying that if you speak 2 fluent languages that this does not help you learn a 3rd?

No, not at all. I must have written the post very badly to give that impression. I wasn't talking about secondary language acquisition at all.

Mark Hamill

Enkidu wrote: »

This is isn't really related to Irish, but I'd just like to comment on this. I think your "just" pastes over what is actually going on. "Transmitting ideas from person to person" includes virtually all interpersonal contact between anybody ever. So if language is a tool for that, it is vastly important. A given language and culture also seems to have an effect on the kinds of ideas transmitted between people, since different languages frame ideas in different ways and different cultures even more so. Even in terms of transmitting ideas inside your own head, your language provides the basic syntax of those thoughts. Languages aren't an analogue of the same program encoded in C++ or Java.

I think this is an example of attributing something to language and culture that isn't there (in the way that people seem to think, anyway). Its not the language or the culture that influences peoples thinking, its the people around them. Yes, language and culture is an expression of overall interactions of the people around you, but ultimately its the people themselves that are the driving forces for the differences in how ideas are framed and transmitted. People came first, not languages and culture, and different languages and cultures grow from groups of people, intially with the same language/culture splitting into new territories.

Enkidu wrote: »

I speak a few languages and I have to say I strongly disagree with you. In fact I have only ever heard this sentiment from monoglots. Personally speaking I gravitate toward different modes of thought in each of my languages. This has long been folk knowledge among linguists, but in the last ten years a lot of experimental evidence is increasingly supporting it as neurological fact. References available if anybody wants them.

But do these different modes of thought extend beyond the formation of correct syntax in whatever language you are trying to express yourself? I mean, if I asked you "what do you want to do tonight?", would your answer depend on teh language we are using? (OK, that question might be too simple for what your are describing, but I hope it gets across the point).

Mark Hamill

Wibbs wrote: »

I've had a fair few bilingual and fluent in same exes(I'm barely lingual myself) and they all said they thought differently in different languages. The languages informed how they thought on a very low level. Like Enkidu said languages are defo not an analogue of the same program encoded in C++ or Java. There's remarkably little direct translation going on, even among languages of the same family. A Spanish speaker thinks in a subtly different way to say an German speaker.

Hell even within the same language. Someone who speaks American English compared to Hiberno English or Mancunian English or Mumbai English are all subtly different in tone, meaning and intent. EG Something like the word "bold" in Hiberno English. "He's being bold". If you're Irish you're thinking he's being naughty, but in other English variants it means something completely different and that something different makes different pathways in the mind. Same language, same word, yet different. Now ramp that up to a completely different language.

I understand that fluent multilingualists dont just translate from their native language in their head before using other languages, but I dont see how its still not just a case of having the same thoughts, but in different languages. Regardless of what language you are going to use, your base, subconscious, languageless thoughts are the same, the difference is in how you express them. Or do you think that peoples personalities (subtly) change based on the language they use?

I grew up in an Irish speaking household. My father is from the west, and was an Irish teacher. We spoke irish to each other and spoke English to everyone else. We did this simply because it was easier to maintain the language for those events when the rest of us had to go west for a funeral or such, when Irish would almost solely be used.

Now I'm in my mid-30's and I can hardly speak a word of it. Frankly I know more German from school than I do Irish. And I don't really regret it at all. I'm sure someone will pipe in that this is a terrible attitude, but honestly, I can't see what the big issue it. Irish has zero practical value either in Ireland or abroad.

The boat has sailed. IF Irish had been made the primary language 50-60 years ago, then perhaps, it would have some real value. But it wasn't, and doesn't. Its just a remnant of our past.

Enkidu

I'll respond to your post to Wibbs and me, since I think it works better.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But do these different modes of thought extend beyond the formation of correct syntax in whatever language you are trying to express yourself?

Yes, it depends on the language but it extends a good bit beyond. However I realise this is just anecdotal so I'll concentrate on more objective points.

Its not the language or the culture that influences peoples thinking, its the people around them. Yes, language and culture is an expression of overall interactions of the people around you, but ultimately its the people themselves that are the driving forces for the differences in how ideas are framed and transmitted.

Yes of course, in the way that the parts are ultimately the whole, but that doesn't mean the whole doesn't effect you. I mean it is obvious that you behave differently from Amazonian tribes, for example you don't walk about virtually naked everyday. I don't think this is because you happen to be around clothing minded people who drive you toward clothing, but because you were raised in an entire socio-historical complex that considers clothing part of normal everyday life, where as the Amazonians come from a different one. This is a rather extreme thing to pick, but it's the easiest way to make the point.

People came first, not languages and culture, and different languages and cultures grow from groups of people, intially with the same language/culture splitting into new territories.

Of course people came first, however I don't see how this ultimately effects things. For example music came after people and different forms of music grow from different groups of people, but I don't think you would argue that music has no effect on people and their thinking. Now imagine language, by which you convey everything. Think of how much comedy, literature, e.t.c is bound in simple accent and dialect differences in English, let alone other languages (as Wibbs pointed out).

Regardless of what language you are going to use, your base, subconscious, languageless thoughts are the same, the difference is in how you express them.

There are two sides to this that I don't agree with, one scientific, the other not. On the scientific end I'm not sure that human thought consists of "pure thought" which is then outputted as language. First of all we differ in relation to a lot of our close primate relatives in exactly the existence of extra linguistic processing centers in the brain, such as Broca's area. I'm not really sure we have any advanced "languageless" thoughts, since in human evolution the development of language occured side by side with the development of abstract thinking and neuroplasticity. In fact the brain seems to have a specific area deticated to analysing grammar, located in the pars opercularis. If your brain/mind is structured around a different set of syntactic relations between ideas than somebody elses, it would be difficult to see how this wouldn't effect your thinking. It would also be difficult to see how one connects ideas in a complicated way without these relations in a "languageless" way. I'm not saying some of the silly Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stuff (if you have no word for evil you can't be evil), but still if you live your formative years in a socio-languistic community, you are going to be strongly effected by it and it will be a big part of whatever mental processes make you you. I think to suggest otherwise is stretching the philosophy of individualism to a scientifically unrealistic level.

seenitall

@ Enkidu:

I think your post could lead me to conclude that bi-, tri-lingual... people and polyglots in general, as well as having more varied avenues of expression than monoglots, also have a more varied, uh, "inner life", as it were, I mean a richer and more diverse "supply" of thoughts and ideas than monoglots. Or did I get it wrong?

(I'm sure I expressed myself pretty poorly right there ^^^^ Be so kind as to put it down to the medium of non-native language! :P)

Enkidu

seenitall wrote: »

@ Enkidu:

I think your post could lead me to conclude that bi-, tri-lingual... people and polyglots in general, as well as having more varied avenues of expression than monoglots, also have a more varied, uh, "inner life", as it were, I mean a richer and more diverse "supply" of thoughts and ideas than monoglots. Or did I get it wrong?

(I'm sure I expressed myself pretty poorly right there ^^^^ Be so kind as to put it down to the medium of non-native language! :P)

Well it is difficult to measure how varied a persons inner life is, so I don't really know. There's no objective way to have such a discussion, so I don't want to inflict my own thoughts on the subject on anybody else.

In plain English: Your guess is as good as mine.

seenitall

Fair enough. I just thought that supposition could quite reasonably follow from what you wrote there: "if you live your formative years in a socio-languistic community, you are going to be strongly effected by it and it will be a big part of whatever mental processes make you you." As in, for example, if your formative years are divided between two or more socio-linguistic communities, you will then be the beneficiary of two or more sets of effects on your mental processes, therefore leading to a wider range of them.

I guess there are so many variables at play with something as intangible and fluid as thought, that we can't possibly know. In plain English.

Mark Hamill

Enkidu wrote: »

Think of how much comedy, literature, e.t.c is bound in simple accent and dialect differences in English, let alone other languages (as Wibbs pointed out).

But is it not the case that its only particular expressions of comedy or literature that are bound in accent or dialogue differences? If there was a significant amount of linguistic meaning bound by language differences, then translations wouldn't work for a lot of entertainment especially the likes comedy (movies, tv etc). Outside of puns, most things can be translated pretty straightforwardly (and even puns can be explained, I watch a subtitled anime which has an extra explanatory line anytime a pun is used).

Enkidu wrote: »

There are two sides to this that I don't agree with, one scientific, the other not. On the scientific end I'm not sure that human thought consists of "pure thought" which is then outputted as language. First of all we differ in relation to a lot of our close primate relatives in exactly the existence of extra linguistic processing centers in the brain, such as Broca's area. I'm not really sure we have any advanced "languageless" thoughts, since in human evolution the development of language occured side by side with the development of abstract thinking and neuroplasticity. In fact the brain seems to have a specific area deticated to analysing grammar, located in the pars opercularis. If your brain/mind is structured around a different set of syntactic relations between ideas than somebody elses, it would be difficult to see how this wouldn't effect your thinking.

I dont know if "pure thought" is the best way to put it, but I do think that every one has a level of thoughtless subconscious. Everyone has an instinctual level where thoughts come from. Our conscious mind can override them, but it is there and its easiest to see if you look at people doing something physical, something that they have a lot of experience in and that they can do without thinking. Maybe I am describing something that isn't there, but I know that when I competitively wrestle, I do things that without thinking, things that I would find hard to verbally describe after (or even during) the fact and that I would find hard to do if I was thinking on every step.

Enkidu wrote: »

It would also be difficult to see how one connects ideas in a complicated way without these relations in a "languageless" way. I'm not saying some of the silly Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stuff (if you have no word for evil you can't be evil), but still if you live your formative years in a socio-languistic community, you are going to be strongly effected by it and it will be a big part of whatever mental processes make you you. I think to suggest otherwise is stretching the philosophy of individualism to a scientifically unrealistic level.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't effected by their community or environment. I'm suggesting that the language itself isn't that big of an influence, as languages are inter translatable with minimal loss in meaning. Many languages have common sources and basic straightforward meanings can be translated across all with little issue (yes, puns, turn-of-phrases and the like cause problems, but these colloquialisms are a result of the type of people who use the languages, not the languages themselves).

aidan24326

alex73 wrote: »

Loosing Irish as a language in my view is sad reflection on Ireland.

Why? Why should it be a sad reflection that most people have no interest in speaking a language that is all but defunct? The time kids spend in school learning Irish could be put to better use teaching them something that is actually useful, be that another European language or some useful life skill. Irish as a useful language is dead, that's the bottom line, and I don't see how there's anything particularly sad about that tbh.

Enkidu

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont know if "pure thought" is the best way to put it, but I do think that every one has a level of thoughtless subconscious. Everyone has an instinctual level where thoughts come from. Our conscious mind can override them, but it is there and its easiest to see if you look at people doing something physical, something that they have a lot of experience in and that they can do without thinking. Maybe I am describing something that isn't there, but I know that when I competitively wrestle, I do things that without thinking, things that I would find hard to verbally describe after (or even during) the fact and that I would find hard to do if I was thinking on every step.

I'm not denying such things exist, however they are not involved in most of your abstract thinking (by abstract thinking I do not mean solving equations, but simple higher order thought like thinking about how to organise your time) in most such thinking the language centers of the brain immediately receive increased blood flow and display a marked increase in neural activity. What you are talking about is mostly muscle memory and I agree that language does not affect this much, as is shown by tests, as the linguistic centres do not "light up".

This thoughtless subcouncious is only at the base of certain types of mental activity and very few of the higher level processes we associate with personality. In other words, muscle memory is not the languageless base underneath most of your thoughts.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't effected by their community or environment. I'm suggesting that the language itself isn't that big of an influence, as languages are inter translatable with minimal loss in meaning. Many languages have common sources and basic straightforward meanings can be translated across all with little issue.

I'm not so sure of that, both as somebody who speaks a few languages and as somebody with scientific knowledge of language. Languages encode culture quite often, a lot of the culture is bound up in language and vice versa. A lot of languages have common sources true, but I don't really see how that matters, if they end up encoding different cultural values and views, then the common origin doesn't really effect that. Simple things can be transmitted without issues in certain languages, yes. However let me take a non-trivial example. In many languages we have an active and a passive way of phrasing a sentence. Example:

Active: I kicked the ball.
Passive: The ball was kicked by me.

The first is used to place emphasis on the logical subject of the action (here I/me), the second to place emphasis on the logical object (the ball). Often these are called the Active and Passive voices.
However many older European languages (e.g. Sanskrit, Icelandic, Ancient Greek) had an middle voice. One which emphasises the object and subject equally. This is a type of sentence that doesn't exist in English at all and is something used in Plato's Euthyphro to great effect when making his arguments. However it's basically impossible to translate into English outside of passive type sentences that lose the meaning and more importantly the immediacy.

Enkidu

seenitall wrote: »

Fair enough. I just thought that supposition could quite reasonably follow from what you wrote there: "if you live your formative years in a socio-languistic community, you are going to be strongly effected by it and it will be a big part of whatever mental processes make you you." As in, for example, if your formative years are divided between two or more socio-linguistic communities, you will then be the beneficiary of two or more sets of effects on your mental processes, therefore leading to a wider range of them.

Oh it certainly does follow from what I said, but I'm not confident enough to bite the bullet and say that yes you have a wider range of thoughts. I would suspect that it is the case, since some tests seem to indicate early bilingualism improves mental ability, but I don't really know.

seenitall wrote: »

I guess there are so many variables at play with something as intangible and fluid as thought, that we can't possibly know. In plain English.

Much plainer (and better) than the English I put it in, this is exactly what I meant.

looksee

then the common origin doesn't really effect that

I'm not suggesting that people aren't effected by their community or environment.

Affect/Affected guys. Please.

Mark Hamill

Enkidu wrote: »

I'm not denying such things exist, however they are not involved in most of your abstract thinking (by abstract thinking I do not mean solving equations, but simple higher order thought like thinking about how to organise your time) in most such thinking the language centers of the brain immediately receive increased blood flow and display a marked increase in neural activity. What you are talking about is mostly muscle memory and I agree that language does not affect this much, as is shown by tests, as the linguistic centres do not "light up".

What about the bits that do light up during muscle memory tests, do they light up during abstract thinking?
Is there not a kind of muscle memory for verbal activities too? Have you never had the sudden urge to say something to someone? An expletive or witty remark?

Enkidu wrote: »

However let me take a non-trivial example. In many languages we have an active and a passive way of phrasing a sentence. Example:

Active: I kicked the ball.
Passive: The ball was kicked by me.

The first is used to place emphasis on the logical subject of the action (here I/me), the second to place emphasis on the logical object (the ball). Often these are called the Active and Passive voices.
However many older European languages (e.g. Sanskrit, Icelandic, Ancient Greek) had an middle voice. One which emphasises the object and subject equally. This is a type of sentence that doesn't exist in English at all and is something used in Plato's Euthyphro to great effect when making his arguments. However it's basically impossible to translate into English outside of passive type sentences that lose the meaning and more importantly the immediacy.

But then how can people in the process of learning any of those languages as a second language ever truly understand the concept of "middle voice" if it cant be explained in their native language?

Mark Hamill

Enkidu wrote: »

some tests seem to indicate early bilingualism improves mental ability, but I don't really know.

I'm not disagreeing with your or anything, but I'm curious how such tests can tell that bilingualism improves mental ability as opposed to being a result of higher mental ability?

Mark Hamill

looksee wrote: »

Affect/Affected guys. Please.

Sorry .
I made the mistake first, so no doubt my mistake effected affected Enkidu :pac:

Wibbs

Enkidu wrote: »

I'm not so sure of that, both as somebody who speaks a few languages and as somebody with scientific knowledge of language. Languages encode culture quite often, a lot of the culture is bound up in language and vice versa. A lot of languages have common sources true, but I don't really see how that matters, if they end up encoding different cultural values and views, then the common origin doesn't really effect that. Simple things can be transmitted without issues in certain languages, yes. However let me take a non-trivial example. In many languages we have an active and a passive way of phrasing a sentence. Example:

Active: I kicked the ball.
Passive: The ball was kicked by me.

The first is used to place emphasis on the logical subject of the action (here I/me), the second to place emphasis on the logical object (the ball). Often these are called the Active and Passive voices.
However many older European languages (e.g. Sanskrit, Icelandic, Ancient Greek) had an middle voice. One which emphasises the object and subject equally. This is a type of sentence that doesn't exist in English at all and is something used in Plato's Euthyphro to great effect when making his arguments. However it's basically impossible to translate into English outside of passive type sentences that lose the meaning and more importantly the immediacy.

And IIRC in a few ancient languages the names/descriptions of colour are very different and this relates to perception and likely brain wiring. Ancient Greek a good example(and the only one I recall ). They had a significantly reduced colour palatte compared to us. IIRC(as Enkidu sharpens his pen:D) Black, white, yellow purple/red. They describe the sky not as blue but bronze or shining. They describe in scientific terms the rainbow as only containing three colours. Honey was green IIRC. Dark hair was blue(they didn't have a word for blonde until later IIRC). The sea to them was the colour of wine. Eh wtf? I mean they had the word for purple/red. Funky wine they were drinking. They appeared to have a different built in perception of the colour of objects. If not why not invent new words for colours they didn't have already? I mean the Greeks weren't exactly an uninventive lot. They seemed to not have the need, or the words they used made sense for their perception of colour. Or the words they used had a meaning more about hue rather than colour. Or colour itself wasn't a separate thing. IE we say green, but it could mean vegetation, moist, life, or red means blood and life and vigour and warmth. Describing the sea like wine maybe meant it was wet and rich and you could see your face in it? IIRC again the Greeks weren't the only ancients like this with regard to colour*. Now this is an extreme example, but IMHO proves that language informs the brain and vice versa. That someone like Plato would perceive colour a little differently to you and me.

Going further it would be my take that language, or more precisely how more abstract language informs and moulds the brain is what made us, Homo Sapiens different to previous humans. The jury seems to be out over whether ancestors like neandertals had speech. I firmly believe they did but if I was to guess I;d say it was quite different to us. It was a direct descriptive language, without much in the way of tenses, and far less symbolic and abstract. I personally think they did have abstract thought(more than they're given credit for), but had a much harder time with expressing it the way we did and do, so an abstract thought didn't "infect" and spread through one of their communities the way it does with us. It had less of a vector.



*some other ones would be some tribal folks who count "one, two, three and lots of things". Try translating the word 20 to one of those people. They wouldn't have the neural pathways. Other jungle types don't have the notion of very far away, because in a rain forest you never get to see very far away, so the word never gets invented. Perception appears to be affected too. One story concerns some of these peoples seeing a jeep approach them on a road. Until it got very close, they didnt see it as approaching, they saw an object getting bigger.

Enkidu

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What about the bits that do light up during muscle memory tests, do they light up during abstract thinking?
Is there not a kind of muscle memory for verbal activities too? Have you never had the sudden urge to say something to someone? An expletive or witty remark?

I'm a little confused if you'll forgive me. What exactly are you aiming at here. Is it that muscle memory and other non-linguistic thought is the foundation of thought, i.e. your "real" basic thoughts and that language only expresses that?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But then how can people in the process of learning any of those languages as a second language ever truly understand the concept of "middle voice" if it cant be explained in their native language?

Well, after a while you see enough sentences when you read enough books and you just get it. Similar to any foreign feature in a language. You start off with an understanding based on sentences in English that are sort of approximations and eventually you build up an intuition. I mean you can explain it, but something is lost.

For example in English we have a sort of autonomous "they". For example there is the usual "they": "They are the ones who hit me". However there is also this autonomous "they": "As they say", "Look!, they knocked down the tree".
Some languages don't have this. Now of course you can explain it, it's a pronoun identical in form to the usual third person plural pronoun that specifies an action without mentioning the agent explicitly. Of course a person can understand that as an explanation, but there is a big difference between knowing that and having it as a basic concept.

Enkidu

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with your or anything, but I'm curious how such tests can tell that bilingualism improves mental ability as opposed to being a result of higher mental ability?

Well one has to assume that bilingual children don't all have higher cognitive faculties naturally, i.e. they just being raised in a household with two languages which is probably not correlated with some sort of higher genetic ability in the parents.

Of course the tests do not prove anything because there is so much ambiguity, which is why I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on them.

Mark Hamill

Enkidu wrote: »

I'm a little confused if you'll forgive me. What exactly are you aiming at here. Is it that muscle memory and other non-linguistic thought is the foundation of thought, i.e. your "real" basic thoughts and that language only expresses that?

Yes, I admit that muscle memory may not be exactly the same thing, but there is a subconscious level of instinct that underlies our linguistic thoughts, I would think. Would this not explain sudden urges to say something, or people having difficulty with saying tongue twisters (even in their head, even though they understand the simple meaning they describe)?

Enkidu wrote: »

Well, after a while you see enough sentences when you read enough books and you just get it. Similar to any foreign feature in a language. You start off with an understanding based on sentences in English that are sort of approximations and eventually you build up an intuition. I mean you can explain it, but something is lost.

Lost, but only in the immediate explanation though. If what you are saying is true, that languages represent some fundamental difference in brain activity, then these language differences could never be truly understood as you would be limited by your brain activity from recognising it. That you can eventually understand it, with enough examples and interaction, makes it look like that all you loose in translation each time you encounter it is rhythm.

Enkidu wrote: »

For example in English we have a sort of autonomous "they". For example there is the usual "they": "They are the ones who hit me". However there is also this autonomous "they": "As they say", "Look!, they knocked down the tree".
Some languages don't have this. Now of course you can explain it, it's a pronoun identical in form to the usual third person plural pronoun that specifies an action without mentioning the agent explicitly. Of course a person can understand that as an explanation, but there is a big difference between knowing that and having it as a basic concept.

But that goes for everything though, there is a difference between knowing in theory and knowing in practice. But with enough practice you can properly understand the theory, with enough explanation and examples almost any languages quirks can be expressed by other languages (albeit with a loss of rhythm or pace).

The Corinthian

alex73 wrote: »

Does Language effect our way of thinking our Identity?

I speak a few languages and was originally brought up bilingual.

I do think that language does effect our way of thinking. To begin with different languages will have their own unique, or at least different, expressions and vocabulary that can invoke perspectives that one would not inordinately be aware of if limited to one language.

For example, the term simpatico (Italian), sympathisch (German), sympathique (French) and simpático (Spanish) is one that for some reason exists in most European languages, but there's no real equivalent in English (that someone is 'sound' is as close as I can find). As it describes a very particular concept, lack of it in one language leaves one at a disadvantage.

And to deal with such omissions, languages will often import such terms, with English being one of the greatest borrowers out there. Terms such as schadenfreude (German) or fiasco (Italian) have entered the English language, bringing with them new ideas, previously undefined in English - yet they still only represent small number of such non-English terms in existence that actually became part of the language.

Expressions too often conjure up different images when they convey their message. One of my favourites is the German "ziehen über den Tisch" ("pulling over the table") which denotes when someone has been on the bad end of a deal or otherwise tricked or screwed over. In terms of describing the act, it's is far richer than the English equivalents (e.g. "pulling one over").

Then there is grammar and how one constructs one's arguments. Some languages (e.g. French, Italian) are florid and verbose, others (e.g. German, Dutch) are the opposite, and so getting into the habit of naturally structuring your thoughts to fit the language will likely have an affect on how you also structure your thoughts.

And finally understanding of a language allows one to better understand or immerse oneself in the culture(s) that speak it, which in turn would undoubtedly affect you; I remember reading once "call a northern European a cuckold and he'll reach for his dictionary, call a southern European a cuckold and he'll reach for his knife".

But can it also affect one's identity? I can't imagine how it would not as a result. Even if one ignores the effect it would have on one's thinking, the ability to speak another language opens up greater opportunity to integrate into the culture where that language is spoken, and if so would certainly affect one's identity.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

Expressions too often conjure up different images when they convey their message. One of my favourites is the German "ziehen über den Tisch" ("pulling over the table") which denotes when someone has been on the bad end of a deal or otherwise tricked or screwed over. In terms of describing the act, it's is far richerthan the English equivalents (e.g. "pulling one over").

Maybe for that particular action/state, but I find the English a hugely rich language in terms of its idioms, not least for its entertainment potential in the minds of non-native speakers. Many were the evenings, back in the day, when my bro and myself would crack up on a regular basis, while watching TV, on hearing expressions such the one about "taking it around the block", or "the fat lady singing", in otherwise straight shows or films. Ah, the joys of simple, innocent fun!

That German expression you quoted reminds me of a similar, and equally descriptive (if not even more so!) English phrase : "to have someone over a barrel". I remember an ex of mine (who happened to be a gay men-magnet on account of his good looks and general flirty demeanor) using the phrase self-descriptively to great effect, in a faux-innocent manner and "lubricated" with alcohol, in the company of some gay acquaintances. Hilarity ensued! :D

Good times.

confusticated

I definitely think it affects how you think - English is very precise and to the point sometimes, so much so that I would say things very directly in French when I didn't speak it very well and people would be a little taken aback with it. When I stopped trying to directly translate, my way of speaking changed, but I was surprised that my way of thinking did too. Thoughts would meander a bit more in my head before I'd say them.

I realise it's not at all scientific, but ime yep, you're nearly a different person in a different language. Not quite, but not exactly the same either.