How enslaving is the English language?

[reverse]

I’ve heard that early English didn’t need words like “to” and “from” and “for” to originally make a sentence.

 

That you just said king +gave +horses +men.

 

And you figured out the meaning by what was most likely.

 

It for example would not be likely that the men gave a King to the horse.

 

I guess what I’m wondering is,

 

How much more powerful would our thinking ability be if we say thought in Latin or ancient Greek?

[Dak]

an investigation was done into this on a group of english people (whos first and onlylanguage was english) and another group of people whos first and only language was korean or taiwaneese or something (cant remembre what language it was, sorry, but i think it was oriental). the individuals were given pictures of things and told to sort them into two groups, but not given the criteria by which to sort them. so for example they may have been shown pictures of red things and green things, of animals and innanimate objects, things on boxes and things in boxes etc and have to spot the criteria themselves.

 

the time taken to spot the grouping charectoristic was recorded, and the average times for each group compared. in most instanses the time taken was consistantly proportional to each other. however a few charectoristics were chosen because the two forms of the carectoristic had different names in one language, and just one name in the other, and in these instanses the people who spoke the language in which the different forms had different names spotted the differense significantly faster. (appologies for bad wording)

 

the only example i can remember was the 'snugness of fit' charectoristic, in which items were shown plased in shoe boxes, and the differense was that some fit in snugly, whereas other items fit in with lots of space spare.

 

in english, both a snugly-fitting and a loosly-fitting item would be said to be 'in' the box, whereas the other language had two different words, eg (words made up) a snuggly-fitting item would be said to be 'wang' the box, whereas a loosly-fitting item would be said to be 'choing' the box. this linguistical seperation of the two differnt types of fit allowed the charectoristic to be spotted significantly faster by the non-english speakers (in this case)

 

so language definately has an impact upon cognition.

[reverse]

Thanks for that info.

 

English is a strange language because of how many other languages got thrown in to its basic structure.

It’s really like one of those bran breakfast cereals,

With all kinds of grains and raisins and bits of fruit mixed in to the same box.

 

What I was really thinking about was the way we encode “time” into a sentence,

or the way we indicate “belonging”.

 

Eg: walk walked walking.

Or

Peter Peters Peter’s

 

And walker…(he who the walk belongs to!)

 

That sort of thing.

 

This surely must effect the logic or apparent illogic of many arguments.

[reverse]

he to whom the walk belongs

[reverse]

aww!

 

as usual, I have found myself in the "lemming trap".

 

Thinking I was swimming across a river only to find myself way out at sea!

 

"A formal grammar is a precisely defined grammar, typically used for computer programming languages. These grammars do not generally resemble the grammars of human languages very much. In particular, they conform precisely to a grammar generated by a pushdown automaton with arbitrarily complex commands. They usually lack questions, exclamations, simile, metaphor and other features of human languages."

 

it's from here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

[Ophiolite]

Less enslaving than any other because of its larger vocabulary - I suggest.

[reverse]

Hi.

 

Welcome aboard the SS Lemming.

 

setting sail.

 

this quote bothered me a lot.

 

 

"

Because Latin words are quite (though not completely) self-contained, an intelligible Latin sentence can be made from elements placed in largely arbitrary order. Latin has a complex affixation and a simple syntax, while Chinese has the opposite."*

 

*from same link as above.

[Ophiolite]

Can you explain why it bothered you?

[reverse]

Ok lets go look for that white whale.

 

My curiosity about our language started when some of the younger members on this forum were thrown by taking things too literally.

(The “Boot strap” misunderstanding.)

 

Then later re enforced by the fact that many of the puzzles were only puzzles because of the way the spoken language worked.

The “Shorter” puzzle.

 

I guess to put it in a nutshell,

I’m worried that if you cant say it with a sentence, then you cant think it.

But just because the structure of English can not convey a fact, does not mean it is not real.

And that leads to the possibility that with a more flexible language structure, more scientific possibilities may open up and become as plain as the nose on your face.

[Dak]

I’m worried that if you cant say it with a sentence, then you cant think it.

if you cant say it with a sentance, its harder (but not impossible) to think about.

[reverse]

Avarst there shipmate Dak,

 

 

Can you give an example?

[Christ slave]

Let's adopt "wang" and "choing".

[Dak]

ahoy there maity, id be referin ye to me first post wi'in this ere thread for ye example.

 

17R!

[Krul]

The meaning of the sentences/words was NOT random or by what was most likely. Each word changed it ending according to it's function. It is a system of conjugations, which still take place in most languages.

By changing the endings ( in most languages ) the meaning of the word changed from subject to adjective etc.

 

English has as origin multiple languages, with gaellic, germanic and later latin influences. To make the language easier most conjugations were changed with standard prefixes.

 

 

As for the question if Latin is better for the mind then English? With so few people really speaking Latin that is hard to say, but it is known that people with Western languages often are able to reason more logically then people with Chinese languages. And that Chinese languages stimulate the artistic part of the brain more then Western languages do.

 

 

Most studies into this has been condemned though because some ignorant politicians say that they fear such studies can promote racism

[Coral Rhedd]

Just so I may better understand this discussion, can someone give me an English definition of wang and choing?

[Dak]

id be remindin ye all that 'wang' an 'choing' be words that i made up in post #2, not real words like.

 

but wang be = tightly in

 

an choing be = loosly in.

 

hehe, choing. that be ticklin me ears. we should define and use it, me heartys.

 

R¹⁷!

[reverse]

Just so I may better understand this discussion, can someone give me an English definition of wang and choing?

 

OHH, ARGRRH, we is funning with yee.

 

Lol.

 

There is no definition in English.

That was the point.

[reverse]

Shipmates,

I has sneaked into thee Captins cabin,

and I gots me a peek at his Map.

I fear there be monsters on this here voyage.

 

 

 

“The grammar of English is in some ways relatively simple, and in others quite complex. For example, word order is relatively fixed because English is an analytic language"

 

Quote from here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar

[Coral Rhedd]

OHH' date=' ARGRRH, we is funning with yee.

 

Lol.

 

There is no definition in English.

That was the point.[/quote']

 

Waaahhhh! Proved naive once again!

 

I could have sworn wang was a word in Chinese.

[reverse]

Noo Noo, ye are most welcome,

in fact,yee have discovered our first tropical island

 

Onomatopoeia Island.

 

all ashore for a little R and R.

 

 

http://www.comparisonics.com/app_mam.html

[Dak]

aye, there be wangs on that thar china! but they nay be words.

a quick savvy on google be reve'lin that wang be a popular chinese name.

 

R!

[Coral Rhedd]

aye' date=' there be wangs on that thar china! but they nay be words.

a quick savvy on google be reve'lin that wang be a popular chinese name.

 

R!

 

Oh yes, they do be:

 

http://www.tigernt.com/cgi-bin/cedict.cgi

 

The one I was thinking of means prosperous or fortunate.

[Dak]

aye, ye be right me matey... but we be sailin off corse, and monsters 'n admin ave oft been known to gnaw upon the bone of unwary way-sailers... so tae get back on the right bearin... what be the best language for ease of use of that thar gray matter twix ye noggin then?

 

www.arrrrrr.com/

[reverse]

It’s no wonder Harry Potter is such a hit with children.

 

SSSSSlitherin.

 

GRRRRiffindoor

 

WHUmp ing Willow

 

HUFFullPUFF.

 

Weezely

 

HagRRRith.

[Dak]

i dont savvy, matey - lest ye be sujestin that 'arry potter be popular cos the words in 'es land-logs be havin random letters in em?

 

tho it does be raisin a peripheral point, me ol' salt: the 's' phoneme be havin negative connotations interwoven in its riggin, more oft than nay used for unpalatable concepts;

 

such as 'snake' 'n 'slovenly' 'n 'stupid' n 'slut'.

 

'n 'shit' 'n 'scab' 'n 'strike' 'n 'stuck' 'n more

 

hearin on me travels am i, tho i remember not whar, that one of the speaches that modern english be based upon intentionally reserved the S sound for bad an evil things, an' so it be that in english the S is oft time associated with bad words.

 

so, what affect be this havin on our thinkin? dus it be pre-biasting us to negatively consider those words as start with S?

 

reason i remember this, is cos of ye mention of the house o' slytherine - the evil house, that be startin with an S - and be, me think, based on the word 'slither', which itself be startin with the evil S an' be based upon the evil snake, whos name also be startin with the dreaded letter.

 

arr, ye shouldn'e av been startin me on the piratical mode a speech, matey: i be findin it hard te stop.