🚀 go-pugleaf

Hmmm! A different angle! 

We were in universities (only some) a course called "Technical German".
The reason told was some of the journals were published in German and 
the student shouldn't miss anything while translating. It was told that
the largest collection of books and other literature on ancient Indian
language "Sanskrit" is in Max Mueller Institute in Germany more than any
of its Indian counter parts. They are reportedly doing some research with
it, please don't ask me what.

When that's on the high end, I had friends learnign tit-bits of a language
just to start up a conversation with some beautiful girl.

My point is people learn languages for various reasons of their own. Some
of their motives or the anticipated rewards (if you please) have never made
any sense to me. So, I guess it must be in one's mind. Nothing changes other
than what you see superficially.

Please don't get me wrong here. I don't believe knowing a few things more
than someone else make me any better than that someone. If one's weaker than
me in some respect there'll definitely be something stronger in one, just to
even out.

I don't wish to speak on the language/political/national and all those issues
which which can be sensitive to some. And hence this will be the last on this.
Also, language class was only a means to prove that if you do certain things
in anticipation of something else would most probably not result favourably,

But, thanx for the insight, John, really.
Anil.

John Cooley (jcooley@world.std.com) wrote:
: Anil <anilv@bedford.progress.com> wrote:
: >I like learning languages and already speak 5. I'm currently learning French
: >on my quest for more. Most of them are Women. Oh! Don't jump-in folks!
: >They all seemed to very  dedicated in learning. When the class began there were
: >13/14 students; by the end of the semester there were only 6 and 2 are  guys.
: >I wondered why and now I know. ;)
: 
: Anil, I love languages, too.  As a result, I fear your reasoning here might be
: a bit flawed.  For 98% of all Americans there is absolutely no advantage
: whatsoever to learn anything other than English.  That is, virtually everywhere

Why do so few actually manage to learn then...
Also is this on topic at all for ANY of the groups you are posting to?

perhaps americans are not punished overtly for not knowing foreign 
languages, because people in touristy places often know english...

but there is so much more to know and do if you do know the language.

A friend and I went to Cancun for a weekend in January. I had enormous fun
bargaining with people, talking with people, listening to chitchat. People
had a look of surprise when an obviously non-Mexican started talking in
Spanish.  (hopefully it wasn't because I just said to the waiter "I would
like a bowl of motor oil and a small silver of fried alligator toes
please.") Some of them asked me where in South America I was from - I 
learned the language from many native speakers.

And how can you truely understand poetry in another language, in
translation? Spanish is a language for poetry and love... and so is
Russian. "Te amo querido mio..." it sounds so much richer in that
language... you can whisper through a kiss behind someone's ear and it
sounds more sensual for being foreign. 

Well, I admit to an over-fondness for language. It's my current vocation,
and an avocation too. I even like pig latin. But I draw the line at COBOL.

--L

Many people many approach learning another langauge as enjoyable rather 
than just useful.  I can easily imagine taking a foreign language in the 
evening as a way to get a little intellectual activity in life.  Its also 
just nice to get out of the house a few evenings a week and do something 
different and meet people.  It does seem to me though that more women 
will take evening classes for personal enjoyment than men.  It was 
pointed out to me when I said something like this before that women have 
more free time than men.  I don't believe this .  Many women have 
children to take care of, and yes can have jobs as demanding as men, and 
yet they find the time.  I personnally like to take classes when I'm busy 
as a way to relax and give the brain something different to think about.  


Ellen

Ellen M Klann <emklann@titan.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>Its also 
>just nice to get out of the house a few evenings a week and do something 
>different and meet people.  It does seem to me though that more women 
>will take evening classes for personal enjoyment than men.  It was 
>pointed out to me when I said something like this before that women have 
>more free time than men.  I don't believe this .  Many women have 
>children to take care of, and yes can have jobs as demanding as men, and 
>yet they find the time.

Ellen, I think the functional phrase is "*can* have jobs just as
demanding as men" in that last sentance.  Our society puts an awful lot
of pressure on men to earn big $$$ as part of their core identity and
as a way to take care of their kids.  (Even divorce courts will jail
a Dad who doesn't pay Child Support; but has yet to jail a Mom for
denying Dad visitation with his own kids.  I'm not saying this is good
or bad; just using this fact to point out how our society judges men.)
Men who don't earn a good chunk of the family's money or don't work at
all are judged as "losers" & "deadbeats" by both men & women alike.

But, when a woman wants to either take serious time off, take lessor
paying easier jobs or quit working altogether (especially if children 
can be the excuse), nobody bats an eye.  Also, both sexes expect
women to be spending a guy's money.  To make things more complicated,
women can now choose to have full blown careers, be housewives, or try
to mix the two; men, pretty, much only are allowed to be breadwinners
and not much more.  (Again: I am NOT saying any of this is 
good/bad/whatever -- it's our society works for a good number of people.)

This being said, this is why you'll find the engineering and business 
classes with many more men than women in them; while the fun classes
in arts, language, and literature usually have more women than men.

  - John

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  __))    "Glass ceilings?  Name ANY ex-goat farmer who's made management!"
 /_ oo  
  (_ \   Holliston Poor Farm                                   - John Cooley
%//  \"  Holliston, MA 01746-6222           part time Sheep & ex-Goat Farmer
%%%  $   jcooley@world.std.com       full time contract ASIC & FPGA Designer

In article <4l960f$5ok@progress.bedford.progress.com> anilv@bedford.progress.com writes:
>
>When that's on the high end, I had friends learnign tit-bits of a language
>just to start up a conversation with some beautiful girl.
 
Hmmm.  Most women seem to complain when a man talks to her chest.

-- 
John Fereira
fereira@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY

On 22 Apr 1996, John Fereira wrote:

> In article <4l960f$5ok@progress.bedford.progress.com> anilv@bedford.progress.com writes:
> >
> >When that's on the high end, I had friends learnign tit-bits of a language
> >just to start up a conversation with some beautiful girl.
>  
> Hmmm.  Most women seem to complain when a man talks to her chest.
> 

Depends on the guy, the situation, and what he says. 

'course, considering I'm 5'4", most guys would have to kneel to talk to 
mine. 

In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960422095147.16153C-100000@mv.mv.com> -=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> writes:
>On 22 Apr 1996, John Fereira wrote:
>
>> In article <4l960f$5ok@progress.bedford.progress.com> anilv@bedford.progress.com writes:
>> >
>> >When that's on the high end, I had friends learnign tit-bits of a language
>> >just to start up a conversation with some beautiful girl.
>>  
>> Hmmm.  Most women seem to complain when a man talks to her chest.
>> 
>
>Depends on the guy, the situation, and what he says. 
>
>'course, considering I'm 5'4", most guys would have to kneel to talk to 
>mine. 
 
That *does* seem to give a whole new definition to the term
multi-lingual (oops, wrong thread).

-- 
John Fereira
fereira@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY

In article <4lgi80$42u@transfer.stratus.com>,
John Fereira <fereira@isis.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960422095147.16153C-100000@mv.mv.com> -=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> writes:
>>On 22 Apr 1996, John Fereira wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4l960f$5ok@progress.bedford.progress.com> anilv@bedford.progress.com writes:
>>> >
>>> >When that's on the high end, I had friends learnign tit-bits of a language
>>> >just to start up a conversation with some beautiful girl.
>>>  
>>> Hmmm.  Most women seem to complain when a man talks to her chest.
>>> 
>>
>>Depends on the guy, the situation, and what he says. 
>>
>>'course, considering I'm 5'4", most guys would have to kneel to talk to 
>>mine. 
> 
>That *does* seem to give a whole new definition to the term
>multi-lingual (oops, wrong thread).

*snort*

I think you speak with forked tongue, sir.

					Robert
-- 
--------------------------
Robert Becker                                      robertb@world.std.com
Erstwhile bicyclist, avid father, longtime breather

John Cooley wrote:
> 
> Anil, I love languages, too.  As a result, I fear your reasoning here might be
> a bit flawed.  For 98% of all Americans there is absolutely no advantage
> whatsoever to learn anything other than English.  That is, virtually everywhere
> we are in North America they speak English and those two weeks every three
> years where we go overseas to a non-English speaking country, we find plenty
> of people speaking English there!  (Let's see, because of business I was in
> Japan last November, Israel last month and in Sweden two days ago.  I didn't
> speak one word of the local lingos and got along quite well!  English *is*
> the international Lingua Franca these days.)
> 
> Please don't get me wrong: I agree with Goethe that the only way to learn your
> own language is to learn another one -- I'm *just* explaining why there was
> such a high drop out rate in your French class, Anil.

One of the things learning a foreign language does teach (when it's learned
correctly) is the ability to think in a different way. Let's say you learned to
speak Eskimo. You would probably never think about snow in quite the same way
that you might have in just speaking English.

Unfortunately the watered-down curriculum of today's elementary and secondary
schools is not even offering the basic set of knowledge, skills, and deductive
reasoning necessary to compete in a world based on science and technology.

What should be required in high school? 4 years of the following: English,
history, mathematics, science (biology, chemistry, physics, computer), a
foreign language, and art (music, painting/drawing, sculpture, dance, etc.). 
It is irresponsible to say that 98% of Americans would gain nothing from learn-
ing a second language. Is it better to take Singles Living, Auto Shop III, 
Typing II?

Since American high school students rank dead last in industrialized nations in
science, foreign languages, and many other domains (e.g., geography) and a huge
number can't decipher a timetable for a bus I would say that foreign language
isn't the only thing that should be taught, but part of an enriching curricu-
lum. Too many high school students are dropping out of science, foreign lan-
guage and other classes claiming, "It's too hard." (curiously, some foreign
languages are superb for science: the Italian word for frog is "rana"; I be-
lieve the biological family - maybe it's the class - of frogs is Ranidae).

It's this defeatist, "well I'm not gonna need that for this job" attitude that
is threatening many sectors of industry. There are furniture manufacturing
plants that are closing, not due to lack of demand for the products, but 
because the factories are unable to locate people that can pass a basic apti-
tude test. Our schools are graduating students who are unable to read and
comprehend a simple paragraph, unable to add and subtract, unable to perform
basic mental skills.

My ability to speak in foreign languages, paint, play the piano, ski, perform
CPR, bake a turkey with all the trimmings, read and understand the majority of
Scientific American or a non-disclosure agreement do not help out in my ordi-
nary life, but what a dimmer life I would have had I not possessed these
skills.

S.

-- 
Sean Yamamoto                                            Silicon Graphics, Inc.
seany@sgi.com                                            "Apply Occam's razor."

     If William of Occam had a beard, it wasn't because his razor was dull.

On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Robert Becker wrote:

> In article <4lgi80$42u@transfer.stratus.com>,
> John Fereira <fereira@isis.com> wrote:
> >In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960422095147.16153C-100000@mv.mv.com> -=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> writes:
> >>On 22 Apr 1996, John Fereira wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <4l960f$5ok@progress.bedford.progress.com> anilv@bedford.progress.com writes:
> >>> >
> >>> >When that's on the high end, I had friends learnign tit-bits of a language
> >>> >just to start up a conversation with some beautiful girl.
> >>>  
> >>> Hmmm.  Most women seem to complain when a man talks to her chest.
> >>> 
> >>
> >>Depends on the guy, the situation, and what he says. 
> >>
> >>'course, considering I'm 5'4", most guys would have to kneel to talk to 
> >>mine. 
> > 
> >That *does* seem to give a whole new definition to the term
> >multi-lingual (oops, wrong thread).
> 
> *snort*
> 
> I think you speak with forked tongue, sir.

oh my! is it getting warm in here?

--L

In article <317BF10A.167E@sgi.com>, Sean Yamamoto  <seany@sgi.com> wrote:
> One of the things learning a foreign language does teach (when it's
> learned correctly) is the ability to think in a different way. Let's
> say you learned to speak Eskimo. You would probably never think
> about snow in quite the same way that you might have in just
> speaking English.

Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
truth is that Eskimos can differentiate lots of different types of
snow because they have to relate to it on a day to day basis for their
livelihood.  But they cannot, on average, differentiate more types of
snow than other people who deal with it a lot, like avid (monolingual
English speaking) skiers.

>Since American high school students rank dead last in industrialized
>nations in science, foreign languages, and many other domains (e.g.,
>geography) and a huge number can't decipher a timetable for a
>bus....

You're right, those timetables are confusing.  I think we need more
education for the people who make them up.

- Ross

-- 
Office: 37 degrees, 25.212' N, 122 degrees, 04.965' W
"Where am I?  Oh, here I am."  -- Dr. Einstein

On 22 Apr 1996, Ross Thompson wrote:

--clip--
> Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
> are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
> decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
--clip--

I don't know whether people are limited by their language. Perhaps 
people's decision that something is important may be affected by how much 
their culture, and language, stress it. Whatever.

I DO believe that the reverse is true. People make lots of words for
whatever is important in their culture. And also... there is a style of
thought, carried over into language, that is particular to every culture. 
People attempting to learn about another culture can get inside the
mindset, to a degree, by becoming good enough at the language that they
can think in it. That is how Spanish is for me; after a few days in Mexico
I stopped translating for myself (except when faced with an unknown word,
and then I simply did the standard language-class trick and put a spanish
ending on the word regardless of the word's language of origin). I don't
claim to know how it is to be Mexican, but I claim I'm closer than the
tourists who spent all their time on booze-boats speaking English to other
tourists and treating the people of the land as servants. 

And also, it makes me much more capable of mentally turning the tables
when encountering a non-native english speaker. In other words, I don't
automatically see them as having an intelligence level equal to their use
of english words, given that my IQ, rated in spanish, is guaranteed to be
lower than mine in English. And that goes for other things, like southern
accents (which often make northerners decide the southerner is slow in
general) etc. The only one I really can't deal with is Boston Southie. 

--L

In article <317BF10A.167E@sgi.com>, Sean Yamamoto <seany@sgi.com> wrote:

>What should be required in high school? 4 years of the following: English,
>history, mathematics, science (biology, chemistry, physics, computer), a
>foreign language, and art (music, painting/drawing, sculpture, dance, etc.). 
>It is irresponsible to say that 98% of Americans would gain nothing from 
>learning a second language. Is it better to take Singles Living, Auto Shop 
When I was in grade school I was sent to Hebrew school three days a week, and 
learned almost no Hebrew. In high school two years of German gave me a dozen 
vocabulary words, a smattering of syntax, and 28 years later I can still 
remember the copyright notice (which was in English) at the beginning of each 
of the teaching tapes. I had no practical need for either language, and both 
"educational" activities were a massive waste of my time.

When I joined the Peace Corps and received a month of intensive language 
training in Thai, I became fluent in a matter of weeks. For two years I worked 
in Thai, and can still hold up my end of a conversation, 18 years later. After 
that I lived in Israel for 6 months, taking a month of Hebrew. Israel's 
language training sucks compared to the Peace Corps, and I only retain a small 
amount of what I learned, but while I was there, I could at least get around 
in Hebrew. On visits to Mexico, I picked up enough Spanish to order a meal and 
count my change and make small talk. Extremely small talk. Ditto with trips to 
Bali and Fiji.

The point is, until you need a language, there is no reason to be forced to 
learn it. If someone is interested in language, by all means offer the 
opportunity to learn. The best opportunity, of course, is to learn in a 
country where that's the native language. 

 ......................................................................
| howeird@netgate.net           | I knew French was a language by age 6.  |
|............................| At 19 I discovered it was also a tongue.|
| Anatomically Correct BBS [408] 733-7429 |............................|
|.........................................|
http://www.netgate.net/~howeird/howeird.html

>On 22 Apr 1996, Ross Thompson wrote:
>> Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
>> are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
>> decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
Debunked? What cave have you been living in? Anyone who speaks more than one 
language, especially languages from different language groups, will tell you 
that language shapes the way you think. Sometimes it's limiting, sometimes 
it's mind-expanding. For instance, there is no genderized pronoun in Thai. You 
can't tell if someone is talking about a man or a woman, unless the person 
says the name of whom they are talking about. On the other hand, in formal 
Thai a man ends every sentence with the word "kraap" and a woman ends every 
sentence with the word "ka". So even in writing, you always know if something 
is being said by a man or woman - something which is not a feature of English. 
This time, in English, if you don't know the name of the author, you have no 
idea if it's a man or woman.

To my way of thinking, these are limitations which language places on the 
people speaking those languages.

Chinese, Thai and Malaysian/Indonesian all have a strict sentence structure. 
Adjectives *always* follow nouns, never preceed them. Adverbs *always* follow 
verbs, they never come before a verb. In English, one of the more common 
tricks in comedy is to build up a string of adjectives, get the audience to 
expect a particular noun, and then switch to a different noun. It can be 
hillarious, but it can't be done in Chinese.

So what gave you the idea that language doesn't limit thought?



 ......................................................................
| howeird@netgate.net           | I knew French was a language by age 6.  |
|............................| At 19 I discovered it was also a tongue.|
| Anatomically Correct BBS [408] 733-7429 |............................|
|.........................................|
http://www.netgate.net/~howeird/howeird.html

In article <4lp126$91u@usenet1.sjc.in.sel.sony.com>,
Howard Stateman <howards@sec.sel.sony.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Apr 1996, Ross Thompson wrote:
>>> Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
>>> are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
>>> decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
>Debunked? What cave have you been living in?

None of your damn business. :)

But more to the point, the points that you make are attachments to
very superficial elements of language.  I assure you, for example,
that if the my cognate for "red wine" is different than Pierre's
cognate for "vin rouge," it has nothing to do with word order or
morphology, but rather on cultural and experiential differences.  The
appeal of the Whorfian(*) hypothesis, as it is known, is very
intuitive, but I think if you look at the linguistics literature, you
will find very little respect for this hypothesis today.

A colleague of mine reminded me of an interesting experiment in this
area.  I report it not to convince you, but rather to amuse:

Apparently early after Whorf made his conjecture, a lot of people felt
that he meant that there was sub-vocalization going on during thought,
and that this vocalization could be detected as micro-contractions of
the vocal apparatus.  To refute this, an exerimenter whose name I
can't remember administered curare to himself to paralyze the entire
musculature.  During that time, he was shown stimuli, and after the
curare wore off, he was able to report what he had seen accurately.
This experiment was powerful enough that the Whorfian hypothesis had
to be reformulated, and caused a small revolution in the thinking of
linguists.

- Ross

(*) No, I'm not some Trek weanie, that really was his name.  As far as
I know, he was an earthling.	- drt
-- 
Office: 37 degrees, 25.212' N, 122 degrees, 04.965' W
"Where am I?  Oh, here I am."  -- Dr. Einstein

In article <oster-2804960214280001@192.0.2.1>,
David Phillip Oster <oster@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4luqmb$jbs@nkosi.well.com>, saunders@well.sf.ca.us (Barbara
>Saunders) wrote:
> The problem: [Using "Getting Married" as a euphamism for "having
> sex"] caused them to conflate the concepts of sexual intercourse and
> getting married. Oh, sure, they knew the difference intellectually,
> but in the heat of the moment, when a quick response was necessary,
> they'd combine the two.

You're getting confused, my friend.  The Whorfian hypothesis is about
how a language effects the thought processes of the *speaker*, not the
listener.  If the joke teller/inviter knew what he *meant* then you
have not said anything to the purpose.

-- 
Office: 37 degrees, 25.212' N, 122 degrees, 04.965' W
"Where am I?  Oh, here I am."  -- Dr. Einstein

In article <4lp126$91u@usenet1.sjc.in.sel.sony.com>,
Howard Stateman <howards@sec.sel.sony.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Apr 1996, Ross Thompson wrote:
>>> Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
>>> are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
>>> decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
>Debunked? What cave have you been living in? Anyone who speaks more than one 


Nope, he's right.  The theory used to be that different languages 
actually shaped the cognitive process in some "physiological" way.  That 
is no longer considered the case.

In article <4luqmb$jbs@nkosi.well.com>, saunders@well.sf.ca.us (Barbara
Saunders) wrote:

> In article <4lp126$91u@usenet1.sjc.in.sel.sony.com>,
> Howard Stateman <howards@sec.sel.sony.com> wrote:
> >>On 22 Apr 1996, Ross Thompson wrote:
> >>> Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
> >>> are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
> >>> decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
> >Debunked? What cave have you been living in? Anyone who speaks more than one 


> Nope, he's right.  The theory used to be that different languages 
> actually shaped the cognitive process in some "physiological" way.  That 
> is no longer considered the case.

And yet, I have heard the Whorfian hypothesis to be the case with my own
ears. I once was visiting with a group of young people who were devote
Baptists. The conversation turned to sex, and they began telling each other
dirty jokes. Only one problem: their moral code forbid them from naming the
sex act. They used a euphemism: "Getting Married" Unless you knew the code,
this lead to some pretty strange dirty jokes.

The problem: this caused them to conflate the concepts of sexual intercourse
and getting married. Oh, sure, they knew the difference intellectually, but
in the heat of the moment, when a quick response was necessary, they'd combine
the two. If you asked one of them to have sex with you, that was treated as
both an invitation to intercourse, and an invitation to marriage.

Similarly, one of the experiments given as proof of the Whorfian hypothesis
is: different cultures divide the spectrum at different places. If you ask
someone of a culture that doesn't have a name for an in-between-shade as
opposed to its near neighbors, for a name of the in-between-shade, it takes
them a meausurably longer time to construct a phrase like "sort of
yellowish-purple" than it does for them to begin to say "magenta" Oh, they
can construct the phrase, but when hit with a novel situation that they
don't have a word for, they go slower.
--------- oster@netcom.com ----------
"A man hears what he wants to hear and misremembers the rest."
     -- Paul Simon, ("The Boxer")

Howard Stateman (howards@sec.sel.sony.com) writes:
|   >On 22 Apr 1996, Ross Thompson wrote:
|   >> Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
|   >> are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
|   >> decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
|   Debunked? What cave have you been living in? Anyone who speaks more than one 
|   language, especially languages from different language groups, will tell you 
|   that language shapes the way you think.

I'm bilingual and i'm also a linguist, and i will not tell you that
"language shapes the way you think".  I will instead tell you that
this is an old myth, which sounds logical until you actually think
about it.  Ask yourself this: If language shapes the way we think, how
does anyone ever learn a second language?  How did people ever create
those languages?

One of the most readable debunkings i've read of this myth is to be
found in _The Language Instinct_, by Stephen Pinker - which i warmly
recommend to anyone who is interested in language.  I'm not as good a
writer as Pinker, but i can try to explain it: culture shapes
language.  If a culture needs to make subtle distinctions in a certain
area, the people belonging to that culture will invent the words and
grammatical structures needed to convey those distinctions.  Whorf had
it almost exactly backward - the thoughts come first, the language
changes to match.

Before accusing someone of living in a cave, it is wise to make sure
they really do have their facts wrong.  Ross Thompson was exactly
right: the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (which Sapir never had
anything to do with) has essentially been discredited among linguists.  

- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
 cindy@nvg.unit.no                      Trondheim, Norway
 My home page, with link to the Bilingual Families Web page:
        http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/

David Phillip Oster (oster@netcom.com) writes:
|   And yet, I have heard the Whorfian hypothesis to be the case with my own
|   ears. I once was visiting with a group of young people who were devote
|   Baptists. The conversation turned to sex, and they began telling each other
|   dirty jokes. Only one problem: their moral code forbid them from naming the
|   sex act. They used a euphemism: "Getting Married" Unless you knew the code,
|   this lead to some pretty strange dirty jokes.
|   
|   The problem: this caused them to conflate the concepts of sexual intercourse
|   and getting married. Oh, sure, they knew the difference intellectually, but
|   in the heat of the moment, when a quick response was necessary, they'd combine
|   the two. If you asked one of them to have sex with you, that was treated as
|   both an invitation to intercourse, and an invitation to marriage.

But if the Whorfian hypothesis were true, they would not be able to
differentiate between the two concepts - it would go much deeper than
simply confusing them "when a quick response was necessary". 

|   
|   Similarly, one of the experiments given as proof of the Whorfian hypothesis
|   is: different cultures divide the spectrum at different places. If you ask
|   someone of a culture that doesn't have a name for an in-between-shade as
|   opposed to its near neighbors, for a name of the in-between-shade, it takes
|   them a meausurably longer time to construct a phrase like "sort of
|   yellowish-purple" than it does for them to begin to say "magenta" Oh, they
|   can construct the phrase, but when hit with a novel situation that they
|   don't have a word for, they go slower.

Yup, that's one of the few experiments which has shown any evidence
for the Whorf hypothesis.  Problem is, it's incredibly weak.  A strong
form of the hypothesis would predict that people couldn't tell two
shades apart at all if they didn't have separate words for them.

Again, i recommend Pinker's _The Language Instinct_ - he's a much
better writer than i, and took more time to explain it than i care to
take.

- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
 cindy@nvg.unit.no                      Trondheim, Norway
 My home page, with link to the Bilingual Families Web page:
        http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/

   cindy@nvg.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) wrote:
>Again, i recommend Pinker's _The Language Instinct_ - he's a much
>better writer than i, and took more time to explain it than i care to
>take.
IMHO, you're too modest, Cindy. You write very well, from what I've seen of 
your postings here, and as a bilingual speaker, you can tell from your own 
experiences whether or not language affects your thought processes.

I speak English, Thai and Hebrew, and can guarantee you that I think 
differently, and actually have a markedly different personality depending on 
which language I am operating in. Granted, part of this is cultural, since I 
learned each of these languages in the context of the culture in which it is 
spoken. But I'm a much quieter, more polite and diplomatic person in Thai than 
in English, and I'm downright offensive in Hebrew. I don't want to be that way 
- Hebrew just doesn't have all the tools for speaking politely which Thai and 
English have. 

As for the question about where different languages/cultures separate the 
spectrum, I can give you a similar example. There was an African exchange 
student in my high school district back in 1967 or so who was having a tough 
time in geometry class. It seems his language and culture did all of their 
building using arcs and circles. The concepts for squares and angles either 
didn't exist, or were very vague. When he first started taking geometry, he 
could not tell the difference between a square and a rectangle. They both 
looked the same to him, and he had no way to describe the difference in his 
native language.

In English, however, he had the tools he needed, and eventually was able to 
see the difference. But I woluld have paid good money to see him try to 
explain it to his buddies when he got back home.

 ===========================================================================
| howeird@netgate.net                                                       |
| "I have the heart of a little child, and the brain of a genius            |
|  and the hands of a surgeon    -- and I keep them in a jar under my bed"  |
 ===========================================================================
| Anatomically Correct Bulletin Board (408) 733-7429[Adults only]           |
| http://www.netgate.net/~howeird/howeird.html                              |
 ===========================================================================

Howard Stateman (howards@sec.sel.sony.com) wrote:
: >On 22 Apr 1996, Ross Thompson wrote:
: >> Oh, man, won't this myth ever die?  The notion that people's thoughts
: >> are limited by the language that they speak has been debunked for
: >> decades, and yet you still see it being quoted every month or so.  The
: Debunked? What cave have you been living in? Anyone who speaks more than one 
: language, especially languages from different language groups, will tell you 
: that language shapes the way you think. Sometimes it's limiting, sometimes 
: it's mind-expanding. For instance, there is no genderized pronoun in Thai. You 
: can't tell if someone is talking about a man or a woman, unless the person 
: says the name of whom they are talking about. On the other hand, in formal 
: Thai a man ends every sentence with the word "kraap" and a woman ends every 
: sentence with the word "ka". So even in writing, you always know if something 
: is being said by a man or woman - something which is not a feature of English. 
: This time, in English, if you don't know the name of the author, you have no 
: idea if it's a man or woman.

: To my way of thinking, these are limitations which language places on the 
: people speaking those languages.

: Chinese, Thai and Malaysian/Indonesian all have a strict sentence structure. 
: Adjectives *always* follow nouns, never preceed them. Adverbs *always* follow 
: verbs, they never come before a verb. In English, one of the more common 

	I beg to differ.  Adjectives do not always follow nouns in Chinese.
	In fact, in modern Chinese, adjectives usually preceed nouns. 
	(Poems and proses from the Tang and Sung Dynasties had a very
	relaxed sentence structure).

: tricks in comedy is to build up a string of adjectives, get the audience to 
: expect a particular noun, and then switch to a different noun. It can be 
: hillarious, but it can't be done in Chinese.

: So what gave you the idea that language doesn't limit thought?



:  ......................................................................
: | howeird@netgate.net           | I knew French was a language by age 6.  |
: |............................| At 19 I discovered it was also a tongue.|
: | Anatomically Correct BBS [408] 733-7429 |............................|
: |.........................................|
: http://www.netgate.net/~howeird/howeird.html

At 30 years old, while in Spain working on the Apollo project, I learned 
Spanish.

I have been so rewared since that you would not believe me.

It has allowed me to have better job, more money, more women and even 
now, because of my Spanish, I am again being seiously considerd for a 
very nice assignemt in Mexio....

Learning other Languages is important of many Americans,


NOTE:  When I first stared studying Spanish in Madrid,  I had to stop and 
study English again so I could understand what they were trying to teach 
me about Spaniash,  So not only did I learn to speak Spanish, I learned 
to speak better English.

I am an electronics technician and languages do not come easy to me.

David Phillip Oster (oster@netcom.com) wrote:
: "A man hears what he wants to hear and misremembers the rest."
:      -- Paul Simon, ("The Boxer")

Actually, I think the correct word is "disregards". "misremembers"
isn't very lyrical.

Rich
Just trying to help.