As used in English, what differentiates these two German loan words? Is it just the difference between a people and an individual, or is there more to it?

quote:

weltanschauung vs. umwelt

Well, as I've never heard them used in English I can't say. I can say that they translate as "ideology" and "environment" respectively, if that helps.

I've seen Weltanshauung used in English philosophy texts with the meaning of 'world-view'. It's not even a loanword, I'd say. It always appears in italics.

I've never seen Umwelt used anywhere in English. Umweltschutz in German means 'environmental protection'.

[Removed typo and rewrote last sentence for clarity.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

I found this entry in Wikipedia interesting:

quote:

The linguistic relativity hypothesis of Benjamin Lee Whorf describes how the syntactic-semantic structure of a language becomes an underlying structure for the Weltanschauung of a people through the organization of the causal perception of the world and the linguistic categorization of entities. As linguistic categorization emerges as a representation of worldview and causality, it further modifies social perception and thereby leads to a continual interaction between language and perception.

I looked for other German loanwords, such as Schadenfreude, to see if they were italicized, too; I found they often aren't so z may be right. However, in doing that, I checked Wikipedia and found this entry, which didn't used to be there:

quote:

Little-used English words synonymous with schadenfreude have been derived from the Greek word epichairekakia (ἐπιχαιρεκακία).[2][3] Nathan Bailey's 18th-century Universal Etymological English Dictionary, for example, contains an entry for epicharikaky that gives its etymology as a compound of ἐπί epi (upon), χαρά chara (joy), and κακόν kakon (evil).[4][5] A popular modern collection of rare words, however, gives its spelling as "epicaricacy".[6]

I'm almost there with my e-word!

Can't believe I missed this interesting topic! If, that is, the topic is linguistic relativity? Just found this interesting article I missed in NYT in summer of 2010, which nicely summarizes the current status of research on the old Sapir-Whorf theory-- Schaadenfreude (epicaricacy anyone?) is mentioned early on..

Linguistic researchers took issue with the details, natch. But I think it's a good rehashing for the layman, bringing us up to date on how language has been shown to have strong impact on one's color-sense & spatial orientation, & pointing the way to more refined research to come. Get a load especially of p.4 where in a certain language one may not use the indicative unless a statement can be proven at the moment of speaking! Wouldn't that just throw a wrench into a conversation.

Please cf my post on Ruth Stone the other day. Tho I think the 2nd poem overreaches, her point as I read it is words as a cage of reason imprisoning one's thoughts to a certain extent..

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
Linguistic researchers took issue with the details, natch. But I think it's a good rehashing for the layman, bringing us up to date on how language has been shown to have strong impact on one's color-sense & spatial orientation, & pointing the way to more refined research to come.

The research is interesting, but the results are often overstated. I quoted Liberman in the other thread saying how "linguistic effects on orientation experiments are roughly as strong as the effects of room decor". And how "a lifetime of linguistic and cultural influence is overwhelmed by a minute or two of passive listening".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,