Member |
My daughter sent me this link about early cultures having no words for "blue," and hypothesizing that therefore there is no evidence they ever saw blue. I just knew people here would have some thoughts on that so I told my daughter I'd ask. Even in reading through their comments, readers said there were ancient words for blue in Sanskrit, Hebrew and Greek. Here's what Language Log has to say. What are your thoughts? | ||
|
Member |
It is plainly a nonsense, as Language Log explains. QI mentioned this in the "Blue" episode. They also mentioned the (incorrect) fact that Welsh is also supposed to have no word for 'blue'. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
| Member |
English, German, French, and Italian all have variations of the same word, so why not Spanish? (azul) One sees "azure" in it, so from the same language family, I assume. How about Russian? Is 'sinyi" (синий) from Greek? I see "cyan" in it, I think. BTW, since ancient Greek didn't have just "blue," but separated colors into light and dark hues, might that might be the basis for the assertion? | |||
|
| Member |
I have no word for "light green" therefore I can't see it. Sanskrit अनील (anīla) slightly dark or blue Ancient Greek κυάνεος (kuaneos) dark blue Cyan is from κυάνεος. Not sure about синийThis message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy, | |||
|
| Member |
Yeah, I knew how people would feel about it here, and of course I agree. However, in explaining the Sapir-Whorf theory to my daughter, I found this interesting analysis, where the author describes those who accept a 'weak', more limited 'Whorfianism.' I think I have some limited belief in Whorfianism, in the sense that, as we've argued here, I do think there are some untranslatable words/concepts. This paper suddenly made me realize why people here got so passionate when I said that I don't think all words or concepts are translatable - because it supports the Sapir-Whorf theory. Well, I certainly don't subscribe to all aspects of that theory, just the idea that not everything is translatable. | |||
|
| Member |
Yes, I think I agree with the ideas expressed in the bullet points used to define 'moderate' Whorfianism.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
| Member |
If not everything is translatable, why would that be? It must be because your language shapes your thought to such an extent that you can't express a concept in an another language because your thought patterns are too different? The strong Sapir-Worf hypothesis, in other words. Or is there another explanation? There is evidence that language nudges thought in specific circumstances. Boroditsky has done lots of work on this. There's this interesting debate between her and Liberman which we might have talked about before. I think Boroditsky overstates her case. In his closing remarks Liberman says, and I think this is really important, that in the experiments that show language affecting thought, the effect can be eliminated by changing the conditions of the experiment or even just the decor of the room. For instance:
| |||
|
| Member |
| |||
|
| Member |
Well, goofy, remember that I said "sometimes" and "in moderation." I don't think language shapes your thought. However, I do think culturally we have situations, emotions, etc., that are very different and for those some cultures have words, but others don't. I am thinking about my Chinese colleague whose 5-year-old son slept with the parents, and that was considered very normal. When I sent my daughter the link to Language Log debunking that errant green, she commented on the complexity of their discussion. I agree with her that sometimes Language Log delves so much into the minutiae or gets so complex in the analysis that it's difficult for the normal person to understand. | |||
|
| Member |
The most important part of that Language Log post is the end, where Liberman says that he couldn't find the study anywhere. | |||
|
| Member |
Yes, I agree, though that alone doesn't refute the bigger question of whether language shapes thought. | |||
|
| Member |
As I see it there's nothing to refute. If we've looked for the evidence that language shapes thought, and we can't find any evidence, it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't.This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy, | |||
|
| Member |
Goofy, has that whole theory been debunked then? While I know that many reputable linguists write against it, I thought others supported it. Am I wrong? | |||
|
| Member |
As I understand it, there is experimental evidence for a weak version of the Sapir-Word hypothesis: language nudges thought in certain circumstances. The debate I link above has examples. There is no experimental evidence for anything stronger. I think some scholars Are proponents of a stronger hypothesis. They use as evidence the fact that multilingual speakers say they think differently when they speak different languages.This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy, | |||
|
| Member |
I've mentioned before that I've known multi-lingual people who would switch languages mid-sentence when an idea seemed better suited to that language. Or maybe it's just that they could recall a concept more quickly in one language than another. I dunno... | |||
|
Member |
Altogether now... "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
Nice to see you back, Bob! Hope to see more of you! Goofy, I did mean the weak version. Data, Bob, can be just as erroneous as anecdotes. I am sure you know this, but one must be so careful to not just look at a table or graph or other depictions of data and believe them. It's how they were collected; was the tool reliable? Valid? What was the sampling technique? Are the data generalizable? etc., etc., etc. And sometimes, at least in medicine, cases (anecdotes) can be quite important evidence when we are talking about rare afflictions. At any rate, I take it that most "reputable" linguists don't believe in any form of Sapir-Whorf. It reminds me a bit of those "scientists" who don't believe in climate change or evolution. They certainly aren't the reputable ones. | |||
|
| Member |
No, I never said that. | |||
|
| Member |
| |||
|
Member |
Hi there, Bob! Long time no see. As I was reading Goofy's comment, it seemed to me that the anecdotal folks who think differently when speaking different languages could just as easily be used as evidence of the weaker S-W (language nudges thought in certain circumstances). | |||
|
| Member |
| |||
|
| Member |
Speed of perception of oddball colours? So it IS possible to not believe one's eyes? | |||
|
| Member |
You write "colour;" Zmj says, "in hospital" or "at university." What is this world coming to? | |||
|
| Member |
The British are coming!  Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
| Member |
Please get it right this time.  This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff, | |||
|
Member |
I can differentiate more colors than I have names for. Color words have long been studied by linguists (Berlin and Kay for example) and there is a bunch of data available to those who take the time to look it up (seemingly not a requirement for journalists). As for French azur and Spanish azul, they ultimately come from the Arabic word for lapis lazuli. Persian, Ladino, and Judaeo-French may also have played a role. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | |||
|
| Member |
I love the word cerulean. It just rolls off your tongue, and it really is a beautiful color of blue. I'll never forget my 7th grade daughter using the word cerulean in a paper. She read a lot (still does) and was always a word lover. She was not trying to be arrogant - just was using a word she had recently read and looked up. The teacher, however, had not heard the word before and therefore took points off because he said it wasn't a word. Of course, he was disabused of that thought. | |||
|
| Member |
I remember an incident involving my sister when she was aged about nine. She used the word 'racquet' (as in tennis) in some writing and the teacher crossed it out and 'corrected' it to 'racket'. My mother went wild! She stormed into the classroom first thing the next day and pointed out the alternative spelling of the word in a dictionary. Oddly, although I remember the happening well, my sister can't recall it at all. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
| Member |
That's so funny! I don't think we "stormed," but I do remember my husband and I, at a conference with the English teacher, pointing out that the apostrophe correction on our son's paper - was not correct. Our son had been right in the first place. Thankfully our son wasn't there or he would have been mortified. | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12