Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:38:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: pgreen <polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Language in danger: Language loss Message-ID: <3CF1E265.7826DDA4@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205261510470.28571-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> <3CF16722.F4236AC8@mindspring.com> <20020526225602.GC1562@lpt.ens.fr> <3CF173C7.8EC49B13@mindspring.com> <20020527071230.GB2120@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > Terry Lambert said on May 26, 2002 at 16:46:15: > > Perhaps I've read too much, or perhaps I'm thinking more in terms > > of abstract conceptualization, which I would argue requires the use > > of words. > > It doesn't. As some American judge said, "I can't define pornography > but I know it when I see it." The same for artistry, democracy, any > other abstract concept. We can sometimes define them in words but we > have to struggle to do so. I usually just put that down to inadequate self-examination, and a failure to read Plato's "Republic". > > But I generally think in terms of words, even for simple > > concepts like "I'm hungry". > > You're fooling yourself. What you're doing is, you first feel hungry, > and then you tell yourself in English that you're feeling hungry, > though the process happens so quickly that there is perhaps no > noticeable time-gap. That's what I meant by "talking to myself" as > opposed to "thinking." Babies, and animals, feel hungry too without > knowing any language. "Feeling" is not "thinking". I may "feel" I'm hungry first, but until I conceptualize it, I haven't really thought about it. If feeling were thinking, then babies would be able to survive on their own. > Try switching your thoughts to a language in > which you are not totally comfortable, but not so ignorant that you > have to translate word-by-word from English, if you know such a > language. You'll notice the gap between thoughts and words then. But > very likely "talking to yourself" in this way is a process that helps > reinforce concepts and aids further thought. A "gendanken experiment". 8-) 8-). I've tried this with Japanese, German, and Spanish. English words always come to my rescue. I guess you could now argue that I'm not fluent until I'm at a loss for words. 8-). I think that the gap you are seeing is a translation latency. In terms of general meditations on advanced concepts, well, it often takes a hell of a lot of words to talk about them, but it's eventually possible, if you are patient enough. I think that it's logical to argue that your point (if I let you make it ;^)) indicates that you are thinking in a language other than a spoken language -- but a language, nonetheless. I think that my original point is still valid: > > Your ability to think about certain concepts is constrained by the > > language(s) in which you are able to think. You still haven't escaped the bounds of language, even if you choose to use an internal language. If you want to approach this from another tack, we can: I posit that there exists such thing as a concept which an unmodified, standard issue human being can not internalize, except symbolically. Actually, I'd argue that twenty-seven dimensional topology is such a concept. I get a headache trying to visualize only five orthogonal vectors... visualizing twenty-seven of them at the same time would probably kill someone. Assuming they didn't pop out of reality all together... 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CF1E265.7826DDA4>