Yes, but it's somewhat limited, especially with respect to affective information. I can almost guarantee you it won't get you very far tomorrow (Valentine's Day). Cheers; Chris
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:25 AM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > Mathematics is the universal language. > wc > > > > ________________________________ > From: caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 10:09:14 PM > Subject: Re: "If we used a different vocabulary or if we spoke a different > language, we would perceive a somewhat different world." > > I'm glad this conversation has bubbled up again, I'm quite bad at > keeping up with email conversations... > > Cheerskep - that bit about Inuit words for snow, or more specifically > frozen precipitation, is a bit of an urban legend, but Finnish does > have quite a few, and Sami is even worse. Here's a link: > http://everything2.com/title/Finnish+words+for+snow > or (tinyurl) > http://tinyurl.com/a8jojnk > > Michael - I guess someplace to start is to look at how a change of > labels in a single language affects perception. For example, I was > eating supper with my German relatives and I thought one of the side > dishes was a somewhat overcooked cauliflower glop with toasted > breadcrumbs. I was rather enjoying it (being 18 and seriously hungry > after hitchhiking around Europe). My cousin Ernst looked over: > Ernst: You like that? > Me: Hmm, yes it's good. > Ernst: Most Americans don't seem to like calves' brains. > > Needless to say, I almost gagged, and getting through the rest of it > was rough going....That one word changed how I perceived what I was > eating. > > Now obviously this kind of effect is intimately tied up with culture - > after all, the Germans were perfectly aware of what they were eating, > and enjoyed it, whereas I (once I knew what it was) did not. But I > don't know if one can be reasonably fluent in another language without > picking up significant aspects of the cultural baggage. I know in my > own case it took awhile to learn not to laugh when (talking in French) > someone said "tabernacle" or "chalice", and only be amused by "merde" > (shit). > > Cheers; > Chris > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> In a message dated 2/7/13 6:10:15 PM, [email protected] writes: >> >> "If we used a different vocabulary or if we spoke a different language, we >> would perceive a somewhat different world." >> >> >>> *(from: Recent Experiments in Psychology* (1950) by Leland Whitney >>> Crafts, >>> Thiodore Christian Schneirla, and Elsa Elizabeth Robinson) >>> >>> Agree/disagree? >>> >>> This would-be profundity is far too vague to yield fruitful discussion. The >> phrase "we would perceive a somewhat different world" is bound to occasion >> all sorts of different notions, hazy "interpretations", in the minds of >> various readers. Off this little evidence of what the writer had in mind, I'm >> inclined to say we don't have to hypothesize a "different language" to make a >> point here. The very same phrase in English can occasion innumerable >> different notions. >> >> But I can imagine the writer responding by saying, "No, no -- I'm not >> talking about notions. I'm saying we perceive a different mind-independent >> world." But readers might then claim that "perceptions" are themselves mental >> entities, notions; we never find pieces of the non-mental world in our minds, >> etc. >> >> Or perhaps the writer means, for example, that the Inuit (eskimos) see snow >> differently by virtue of the very fact that they have sixteen different >> words for sixteen different kinds of snow. (Although, the last I heard, >> scholars who know the Inuit language say it's baloney: they don't have >> sixteen >> different words for different kinds of snow.) Oy vey. What a faulty sieve >> language is!
