Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site mcvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!mcvax!lambert From: lambert@mcvax.UUCP (Lambert Meertens) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.nlang Subject: Re: natural language deficiencies? Message-ID: <6130@mcvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 22:46:56 EST Article-I.D.: mcvax.6130 Posted: Tue Oct 30 22:46:56 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Nov-84 15:08:02 EST References: <12582@sri-arpa.UUCP> <12300003@uicsl.UUCP> <194@oliveb.UUCP> Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 72 [warn your system administrator if this line is missing] > I think that there are two issues mixed up at the moment, being > 1. Some languages have a single word-construction for an idea > that needs several words in some other language. > 2. Some languages *CAN NOT* be used to express certain ideas. The distinction between these two categories is not an absolute one. Steven Pemberton mentioned already the Dutch word "gezelligheid". No doubt it is possible to explain the meaning of the word "gezellig" and its derivatives in English. To do so, however, to a reasonable degree of precision (let alone to a degree of precision that would suffice for non-native speakers to rely on their understanding and utter these words when and only when appropriate) would require a minor essay. Now these words are not at all infrequently used in Dutch. My dictionary lists as translations for "gezellig": "sociable", "cosy", "snug" and "social". A "gezellig avondje" is rendered as a "social evening". In the direction English -> Dutch this is always reasonable. But telling the host that the evening was "gezellig" would be considered a compliment, whereas stating that it was social sounds like a superfluous statement of fact. Translating "gezellig" as "cosy" is usually not only wrong, but also ridiculous. When I try to express myself in English where I would have used "gezellig" in Dutch, I usually substitute "nice". However, "nice" does not really convey the meaning of what I am trying to say. I experience this as a language deficiency. Another example is the Dutch phrase "voor de hand liggen". There is no phrase in English with the same meaning. In some cases, "to be obvious" is acceptable, in some other cases one can use "to come to mind", but in many cases both are plainly wrong, and in those cases there is no *reasonable* way that I know of to express the concept in English. > On the other hand, the Aborigines have no construction for 'what if', > which is much more serious. This really is a language deficiency, > since it will take *lots* of trouble to communicate this idea. Having no construction for a concept is not a property of a race or ethnic group, but of a language. There are many Australic languages. Is the lack of expressibility of "what if" common to all these, mutually largely disparate, languages? That would be a very interesting fact to find. (However, it appears that none of these languages can express the concept "supply-side economics" :-) Seriously, I don't know any of the Australic languages, but I am not at all convinced that natural languages do exist in which it is hard to express the fact that something has the status of a hypothesis, even though the language may lack a word for the concept "hypothesis". This claim about the languages spoken by the Aborigines seems to me just one more unfounded popular belief similar to so many introduced by travellers to uncharted areas while recounting their curious discoveries. If it is true, however, for some language, then this would be a good test case for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. For the implication would be that the native speakers could not entertain hypothetical thoughts, and so would not take provisions for contingencies. To conclude, I want to point out two deficiencies common to all languages I know. The first is well known: what should you reply to the question "Do you still persist in your lies?", when you believe you are speaking the truth? There is no way of stating that the question implies a falsehood other then by directly contradicting the falsehood. On paper, "Question not applicable" may do, but not in a conversation. The other deficiency has to do with "why" questions. Children tend to pass through a period of asking questions like: "Why are bananas yellow?" "Why does water not burn?" "Why is ice cold?" etc., ad nauseam. In some cases there is no "why"; the concept does not apply. For example, it is not reasonable to ask "Why is it Wednesday today?", or "Why is red a colour?". The deficiency is that there is no accepted way of stating about a proposition that the concept "why" does not apply. -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,philabs,decvax}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam "If I were you, I should wish I were me."