open questions, for anyone who still reads this

[mlledupont]

well, i don't think anyone does read this anymore, but i thought i'd try, cause i'd liek to hear some other people's opinions on some things i've been wondering about, all fairly basic, but hey

Comments

[mogutaga]

Ulterior motives are AOK, it just won't make for LASTING friendship the same way less sinister motives might. Friendship is just a state of being, rather than a mindset, if that makes any sense. Even though it's possible for people to remain good friends even though they don't speak to each other/pay attention to one another, during the (extended) interim down-time, I don't think it's fair to call them a friend, because so much changes between now and then, and you're never sure if you will diverge with that person (in thought, in feeling, whatever). I think my point is that in friendship there's always a sort of constant reassessment, whether you pay attention to it or not, which is why ulterior motivey friendships don't last since they are most obviously not going to want to pay attention to you after they get what they want. (By the way. Wanna have like, a marriage of convenience? Lalalalalala tax benefits)

However, I can't deny the importance of wanting to spend time with one another. I know people who are just really friendly at parties that always talk to everyone animatedly, and in that short time, I think they're my friends, but afterwards it's kind of meh. This is a really poor metric, but if they decide to friend me on facebook at some later date then I know at least they like me enough to look up my name, so I'd call them friends.

Internet dating is sleazzzzzzy, and I refuse to look for boys on the internet.

This next part is only tangentially relevant to your idea. The whole language informs your thought thing is totally up for debate, in the psychology world. In my class they concluded that although language changes certain syntactic methods, we essentially all have the same primordial ideas lodged in us. I'd agree with that much, but I definitely think that there's a difference between people depending on the language they speak. Maybe because language is so intimately tied up with culture. To answer your question, yes. She does have a different personality in each language. But it's not because of her word choice, I think, since she's fluent enough in all of the languages she speaks. Rather, because Cantonese people speak in a certain way that's aggressive and haggley whereas it's unacceptable for American women to be that way without coming off as bitchy. Also, in Chinese in general there's lots of implied meaning which isn't true of American English.

When there's a breakdown in language, there is a difference in communication. And it would be logical that one relies more on intent than words, but it's difficult to express that intent, because cross-cultural boundaries are also prevalent. This must be really obvious, but it's harder to understand someone when you don't have words; but even if you speak the language there are still trials and tribulations. It's just really hard for people to communicate with each other, and any tools available make it easier (and language is like the screwdriver or the hammer in your toolbox. I think intent is like the wrench).