I always liked the idea (apparently not true) that Inuit languages contain dozens of words for different grades of snow.
According to The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax the various Inuit languages do have lots of words for snow, it's just that they're compounds rather than monomorphemic, and there aren't nearly as many as The Meejah like to claim. So the whole thing is interesting but trivial in the sense that it doesn't tell us anything new about language and perception.
Austrians also have a lot of words for types of snow :-)
This comment was brought to you courtesy one of my Previous Lives.
I'm wondering why English doesn't have more words for all the different types of rain I got caught in this afternoon.
I suppose the underlying idea that we have abilities that learning the wrong language has caused to atrophy is sort of romantic. I remember an article in Nature (OK I'm a geek , I went and looked it up) that was looking at a distinction between tight and loose fit, which is present in Korean but not English. Apparently English speakers were much less attuned to the difference than native Korean speakers, but 5 month old babies of either nationality were just as good as the Korean adults. But they ended up admitting that English speakers were perfectly capable of perceiving the distinction once it was pointed out.
Long time just lurk. I've been reading your journal entries, though, just haven't had time to comment lately. But term is winding down now and I suddenly find myself with lots of time on my hands and a desperate urge to put off cleaning the house ;-)
they ended up admitting that English speakers were perfectly capable of perceiving the distinction once it was pointed out.
And therein lies the rub, of course. I can't help noticing that Germans find English progressives fiendishly difficult, not because they can't distinguish between an action with duration in time and a punctuative one but because they're just not used to having to encode that distinction gramatically. And Chinese learners of English have enormous trouble with "he" and "she" (oh, the scope for humorous errors, ha ha!) but it would be hard to argue that this is because they have toruble perceiving the difference between male and female
( ... )
Funny thing about Ellison; he's great at coming up with "killer" titles, but the stories rarely live up to the titles (IMO). And I tend to like his nonfiction better than his fiction. Maybe because his fiction (especially the earlier stuff) tends to be pessimistic, and I find that to be a turnoff? But I like "dark" writing by others. I can't quite put my finger on it...
I think Ellison's writing has an "aren't I being a shockingly naughty boy" quality that gets annoying quite soon. But I do remember my 16 year old self being thrilled by the introduction to Deathbird Stories.
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
Reply
According to The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax the various Inuit languages do have lots of words for snow, it's just that they're compounds rather than monomorphemic, and there aren't nearly as many as The Meejah like to claim. So the whole thing is interesting but trivial in the sense that it doesn't tell us anything new about language and perception.
Austrians also have a lot of words for types of snow :-)
This comment was brought to you courtesy one of my Previous Lives.
Reply
I'm wondering why English doesn't have more words for all the different types of rain I got caught in this afternoon.
I suppose the underlying idea that we have abilities that learning the wrong language has caused to atrophy is sort of romantic. I remember an article in Nature (OK I'm a geek , I went and looked it up) that was looking at a distinction between tight and loose fit, which is present in Korean but not English. Apparently English speakers were much less attuned to the difference than native Korean speakers, but 5 month old babies of either nationality were just as good as the Korean adults. But they ended up admitting that English speakers were perfectly capable of perceiving the distinction once it was pointed out.
Reply
Long time just lurk. I've been reading your journal entries, though, just haven't had time to comment lately. But term is winding down now and I suddenly find myself with lots of time on my hands and a desperate urge to put off cleaning the house ;-)
they ended up admitting that English speakers were perfectly capable of perceiving the distinction once it was pointed out.
And therein lies the rub, of course. I can't help noticing that Germans find English progressives fiendishly difficult, not because they can't distinguish between an action with duration in time and a punctuative one but because they're just not used to having to encode that distinction gramatically. And Chinese learners of English have enormous trouble with "he" and "she" (oh, the scope for humorous errors, ha ha!) but it would be hard to argue that this is because they have toruble perceiving the difference between male and female ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment