English and Perception

[sorenx7]

Although it has nothing to do with English, when people start comparing languages, I sometimes think of this---


"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."

- Charles V

 

[Mole]

english went around conquering the world and saying you indegisnous peeps learn english and they were like no and they were like fine then we'll kill you and your family and they were like ok, plus english speaking countries can't keep their noses out of others affairs and so via merging of culture and english speaking people not wanting to learn a language and can make everyone else learn it, it makes sense that it be a mutt language.

In fact the British Empire colonised most of the world, and the Sun never set on the British Empire. And the love of the British Empire lives today in the British Commonwealth, consisting of fifty-three Nation States. And indeed my own country is a member of the British Commonwealth. And why not start asking why your country is not a member of the British Commonwealth, and indeed ask the pointed question that, when your global empire comes to an end, will fifty-three Nation States join in a Commonwealth under your President? And if not, why not?

And indeed the British Empire was a literate culture meeting the spoken cultures of the world. And literate and spoken cultures have different epistemologies, or different ways of seeing the world.

And literate cultures are far superior to spoken or illiterate cultures in that all of us here have been compelled by State Law to go to school to learn to read and write.

So the British Empire did not compel colonised people to learn English, rather the British Empire compelled them to go to school to learn to read and write.

So the facts of the matter are: literacy by its very nature destroys spoken or illiterate cultures. This is why today Boko Haram, a spoken culture, is determined to destroy Western education, because they know literacy will destroy their spoken culture.

 

[Mole]

The data given in the OP is inaccurate as are the conclusions drawn from that false data. This betrays a poor understanding of linguistics.

Here's a short explanation why: Counting words: The biggest vocabulary? | The Economist

As for the languages mentioned so far: The numbers mentioned can't possibly be compared. For example, 135.000 is not the number of words in the German language, it is the number of words in an abridged go-to dictionary standing on many office desks, the Duden. The Duden publishing house (which is also a language research center) is actually collecting a corpus of German words and has counted about 9 million different German words, however many of them have only been ever used once or twice because they are compounds. It does show you though that at least 9 million words can be expressed in German. Also, the French language has not 100.000 but rather about 300.000 core words, but that doesn't mean anything either because they form compounds differently than English or German.

So it is near impossible to know how many words a language comprises because there is no generally accepted definition of "word" (and language vs dialect is yet another issue). And it is just as impossible to fairly compare different languages, especially if they work very differently.

The difference between langue and parole is a whole different story. The fact that a language contains millions of words doesn not mean that a single person on earth actively or even passively knows them all. Not by far. The average vocabulary of an educated adult is about 15.000 words, no matter if his native language is English or German or French. Very highly educated scholars and writers can nearly double that number but would still be very far away from using the actual potential of their native language. Most of the words that go beyond the vocabulary of an educated adult are highly technical terms (million of them in chemistry alone if you count all the possible names of chemical compounds!). They have no influence on how refined or differenciated the perception of the world is that the man on the street or even the poet or the highly sophisticated professor has.

Putting these problems aside, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that language determines or at least shapes out worldview) has to be taken with a large chunk of salt. Things are a bit more complicated.

Dare I take issue with a German linguist and scholar who is one of the most loved and popular members of Typology Central?

I must ask myself, am I suicidal? Or do those who dare, win?

I certainly can't meet you on rational grounds, so I concede that inside my simple dichotomies lies a world of complexity.

So just as you are loved here I ask, what is more loved, English or German?

English is more than loved, English is taken for granted across the world, it is our lingua franca. It is the language of business, the language of science, and the language of poetry.

Poetry is like truth, and no one likes poetry. Yet we all speak English, look, what a scandal, we are all speaking English now, who would have guessed?

And yet we all have a soft spot for German, a wounded language, a language that has dressed its wounds and made amends. And indeed we might say German is the father of English, that when we speak English, we are also speaking German. We can say today, je suis German.

And just as we have a soft spot for Red Herring, we have a soft spot for German.

 

[á´…eparted]

Dare I take issue with a German linguist and scholar who is one of the most loved and popular members of Typology Central?

I must ask myself, am I suicidal? Or do those who dare, win?

I certainly can't meet you on rational grounds, so I concede that inside my simple dichotomies lies a world of complexity.

So just as you are loved here I ask, what is more loved, English or German?

English is more than loved, English is taken for granted across the world, it is our lingua franca. It is the language of business, the language of science, and the language of poetry.

Poetry is like truth, and no one likes poetry. Yet we all speak English, look, what a scandal, we are all speaking English now, who would have guessed?

And yet we all have a soft spot for German, a wounded language, a language that has dressed its wounds and made amends. And indeed we might say German is the father of English, that when we speak English, we are also speaking German. We can say today, je suis German.

And just as we have a soft spot for Red Herring, we have a soft spot for German.

This is intellectually dishonest and immensely deceptive and undercutting.

You're conceeding defeat by acknowledging that Red Herring is more knowledgeable on this subject and that you can't combat her because of it. Yet, you cite and imply the reason you can't/won't push back is because she is loved and respected by people on the forum.

Your post is around 5% conceeding defeat, and using the remaining 95% to cover that nugget up and frame the discussion away from the subject matter and instead on the social dynamics of the forum related to the poster to make it look like she has an immense unfair advantage, and that you have an immense disadvantage. It's merely taking issue with the playing field and calling it unfair when it's not.

It's unfair, wrong, borerline slanderous, and immensely ironic.

 

[Mole]

Reminds me of that Alan watts quote, about confusing the world that is talked about, described and measured, with what is.

It's true, the map is not the territory, and English is the map, and the rest of he world is the territory.

Of course we are inclined to think English is transparent, and that we can see through English to see the territory. And the Americans seem most prone to this literal mindedness.

American literal mindedness comes from their literal interpretation of the bible, which they unconsciously transfer to the literal interpretation of English. And it is plain to an Australian that American literal mindedness leads them to be blind to irony.

Yet English does not say what it means, and doesn't mean what it says. And so we refer to the English as Perfidious Albion.

Yet we are only perfidious to those who are blind to the glories of English.

Alan Watts, of course, was an American puritan, masquerading as a buddhist, so he wouldn't let himself or others enjoy the taste of English. Like many American puritans he had poor taste. And who can blame them, for they lost their taste for English under the tutelage of the American revolutionary and lexicologist, Noah Webster.

 

[Mole]

Well, I'm reading a lot of the OP's words and I see the distinction between what is and what is being extrapolated from what is. I don't need a lot of words to call it out as short-sighted.

Indeed, we Moles are a short sighted lot. We like to console ourselves that we are cool wearing Harry Potter glasses, but it is more likely we are short sighted because of all the books we read. When they taught Moles to read, they never told us we would never be able to stop. And indeed, Moles are addicted to reading, and such an addiction does not come without a price: short sightedness.

 

[Mole]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]
I understand your point of view, but it feels a little "closed" to me. English may be the lingua franca. Which is funny because English doesn't have a word of its own for "lingua franca", which sort of... proves my point. As [MENTION=6971]21%[/MENTION] said, the more languages you know, the more you see. That's what English did: took words from other origins, didn't stick just with its germanic roots. And that is a wise thing to do.

Let me illustrate my thought. The difference between the Greek polis and the Roman civitas.

The polis was considered the place where people with the same origin, the éthos of the traditions that made them inhabitants of that polis. Whoever was born there, inherited the traditions and consequently, the "citizenship". The civitas, on the other hand, included people from different places, with different religions and traditions who decided to live by the same set of laws. This means that the polis were closed to the "outsiders". They needed the number of people to be small because of their politics, it was easier to vote. If people started mixing up with other polis, their éthos would be also mixed up and they'd lose autonomy and identity as a polis.

But, here is the interesting thing: the Romans kind of invented globalization. They wanted to create an éthos without limits (i.e. to expand themselves and conquer the whole world), called "Roma mobilis". In this Roma mobilis, eany person, no matter their origin, could be a citizen if they accepted to live by the rules. The Romans didn't impose their original culture on the newbies. They took their cultures and added them. Hence, the Greeks became monoglots and the Romans polyglots. They became the most powerful empire you can think of, while the Greek civilization sort of stayed and died there.

Things go better when you add knowlege, not substract (or are reluctant to accept it).

"Lingua franca", was taken from French but is now an English word, even an English cliche.

Yes, indeed, the Romans became universal, and bequeathed us the universal church, whose very name, "catholic", means universal. So we can all say today, "Je suis Roman". And as good Romans we prefer death to exile, unlike the rest of the world who is giving us a tidal wave of exiles.

 

[CitizenErased]

"Lingua franca", was taken from French but is now an English word, even an English cliche.

Yes, indeed, the Romans became universal, and bequeathed us the universal church, whose very name, "catholic", means universal. So we can all say today, "Je suis Roman". And as good Romans we prefer death to exile, unlike the rest of the world who is giving us a tidal wave of exiles.

A) I believe the term was taken from the Italian, which is the language that resembles Latin the most.

B) Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Romanian have Latin roots, whereas English and German are Germanic, so my point stands.

C) Now "lingua franca" is an English word(s) TOO, but its origin is not English. If you accept that the English language adopts lots of words from other origins, i.e. that aren't English per se, you're implicitly giving credit to other languages, because THOSE are what make your language so rich in words.

D) Didn't understand what exile and death has to do with language.

 

[sorenx7]

I think much of what Mole has said about English is valid. It does have the most extensive vocabulary of any language in the world. There are various reaons for this, but many of them are historical. As every schoolboy knows, the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) underwent a radical transformation after the Norman Invasion. Over hundreds of years, English absorbed thousands of French and Latin words. Furthermore, there are many Greek words in English, as well as many words from various other languages. English has a tendency to borrow from other languages, needless to say. It is one of the primary characterisics of the language. It has caused the English vocabulary to be very rich. This is probably a good thing, although I will admit that maybe that can be overemphasized at times.

English has become the most important language in the world. There have been various world languages throughout history, but now English is the lingua franca. I don't really see how that can even be disputed now.

As far as which language is the best, of course something like that can never be proved. Certainly, English has to be one of the world's best languages and maybe even the best.

Personally, I like the sound of German. I also like Portuguese, French, and Spanish--in that order. Circumstances have made English my language and Spanish the language I studied a bit in school. But in terms of sheer asesthetic beauty, German really is my favorite. I have had no practical need to study German, though. Unfortunately, my knowledge of it isn't extensive. Having said all that, however, I still do applaud Mole's efforts to point out the advantages of English. Overall, I do like much of what he has said here and it does even help me have more of an appreciation for my native language.

 

[indra]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy)

The games being played in English speaking countries are some of the grandest. That English in itself is verbose is a symptom, not the crux.

 

[Mole]

A) I believe the term was taken from the Italian, which is the language that resembles Latin the most.

B) Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Romanian have Latin roots, whereas English and German are Germanic, so my point stands.

C) Now "lingua franca" is an English word(s) TOO, but its origin is not English. If you accept that the English language adopts lots of words from other origins, i.e. that aren't English per se, you're implicitly giving credit to other languages, because THOSE are what make your language so rich in words.

D) Didn't understand what exile and death has to do with language.

We are all Romans in the sense our Law is based on Roman Law. And the best of us have the best of Roman values.

We do though live in a time when it is politically correct to disparage the West and Western values. So those who love the West have duty to understand and express Western values.

 

[sorenx7]

I like how the Dutch have availed themselves of the usefulness of the English language. If you watch Dutch TV, you'll see as many or maybe even more programs in English as in Dutch. English shows (usually American, but sometimes Australian and English) are never dubbed into Dutch. Shows for children may be dubbed into Dutch, though. Dutch sub-titles are always there for shows in English. It's one of the ways the Dutch learn English. This is in addition to extensive English instruction in schools, of course. Rarely have I ever met a Dutch person who wasn't fluent in English. I am speaking of the Netherlands as a whole, not just Amsterdam. I've traveled all over the country over a period of years. At first I thought I was just getting lucky in finding so many people who spoke English, but quickly realized there was much more to it than that. I don't want to get carried away and leave the impression that every other person is a Dutch version of Will Shakespeare. However, the Dutch, in general, tend to be very skilled in using English, especially in practical matters.

 

[á´…eparted]

I like how the Dutch have availed themselves of the usefulness of the English language. If you watch Dutch TV, you'll see as many or maybe even more programs in English as in Dutch. English shows (usually American, but sometimes Australian and English) are never dubbed into Dutch. Shows for children may be dubbed into Dutch, though. Dutch sub-titles are always there for shows in English. It's one of the ways the Dutch learn English. This is in addition to extensive English instruction in schools, of course. Rarely have I ever met a Dutch person who wasn't fluent in English. I am speaking of the Netherlands as a whole, not just Amsterdam. I've traveled all over the country over a period of years. At first I thought I was just getting lucky in finding so many people who spoke English, but quickly realized there was much more to it than that. I don't want to get carried away and leave the impression that every other person is a Dutch version of Will Shakespeare. However, the Dutch, in general, tend to be very skilled in using English, especially in practical matters.

I was only 14 at the time, but back in 2003 I went to The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany, and it definitely stood out to me that The Dutch spoke english profoundly better than the rest. My father commented on it too.

 

[Cellmold]

Mate, mate, fairness doesn't come into it, German only contains 135,000 words while English contains 1,025,110 words.

Put up 135,000 German distinctions against 1,025,110 English distinctions and the result is an English blitzkrieg.

Compared to English, German is blind.

And doubly blind because we all perceive in gestalts, that is, we only see what we take to be the whole, but isn't. So for instance Germans think they perceive the whole world with German, but they don't. They suffer, along with all of us, an illusion of wholeness.

It's just that the English gestalt is much, much bigger than the German gestalt.

English not only sees much more than German but also makes finer distinctions.

What is extraordinary is that English is so much bigger, so more perceptive, with finer distinctions, than any other language on Earth.

I think this is an interesting point, language does indeed shape our frameworks.

But I was wondering since [MENTION=6554]/DG/[/MENTION] brought up German and you claimed that the breadth of English made German look blind by comparison.

However does English have singular words for a complex emotional state that would otherwise need an entire sentence in other languages, particularly in English? A good example being schadenfreude.

On top of this; does the sheer number of words and variations of words in English really amount to more distinctions? A lot of those words are colloquial and represent only different ways of saying the same thing. Then there are words that are verbatim the same as each other. Superfluous vs unnecessary being a nicely ironic case.

And distinctions aren't just verbal, they are also conceptual and rely upon a mutual agreement that the distinction exists. Language is living, and changes as we change and adopt new definitions and paradigms for understanding reality. But that doesn't mean it is efficient or that all those words are valid as distinctions.

 

[Mole]

I think this is an interesting point, language does indeed shape our frameworks.

But I was wondering since [MENTION=6554]/DG/[/MENTION] brought up German and you claimed that the breadth of English made German look blind by comparison.

However does English have singular words for a complex emotional state that would otherwise need an entire sentence in other languages, particularly in English? A good example being schadenfreude.

On top of this; does the sheer number of words and variations of words in English really amount to more distinctions? A lot of those words are colloquial and represent only different ways of saying the same thing. Then there are words that are verbatim the same as each other. Superfluous vs unnecessary being a nicely ironic case.

And distinctions aren't just verbal, they are also conceptual and rely upon a mutual agreement that the distinction exists. Language is living, and changes as we change and adopt new definitions and paradigms for understanding reality. But that doesn't mean it is efficient or that all those words are valid as distinctions.

It's true that taking a quantitative approach to language is limited in ways that a qualitative approach isn't.

But still, I remember the Russians conceding that the Germans had the superior quality in WW II, but then came back with, quantity becomes quality. And the result of the war in the East showed the Russians were correct.

Sure, a qualitative approach gives a coarse result, unless the quantitative difference is great, then quantity becomes quality.

In English we have many words for the same thing. But each word has its own nuance, its own shade of meaning, making English a poet's delight.

But to understand how I use the word, distinction, it might be useful to read, "The Laws of Form", by G. Spencer-Brown, click on http://www.manuelugarte.org/modulos/biblioteca/b/G-Spencer-Brown-Laws-of-Form.pdf

 

[entropie]

english contained 1 million and french 100k words ? Eff you Trump !

Wait I can top that: german contains 20k words !!!!

 

[Mole]

english contained 1 million and french 100k words ? Eff you Trump !

Wait I can top that: german contains 20k words !!!!

To see the number of words in common languages click on How many words are there in the world's most widely spoken languages?

 

[Betty Blue]

We perceive by making distinctions. And the more distinctions, the more we see.

Language is a perfect example: it is full of distinctions called words, and the more words, other things being equal, the more we see.

As of 1st January, 2014, English contained one million, twenty-five thousand, one hundred and ten (1,025,110) words, while French, for instance, contained one hundred thousand (100,000) words.

In fact English contains more words, more distinctions, than any other language. So we can say English is the most perceptive language on Earth.

It's also one of the reasons we have such high rates of dyslexia, so it's not all good.