Ancient latin seems such a beautifully abstract language compared to English - why don't we speak it?
My understanding of peoples personal ethics feels vastly improved when I investigate the etymology of their words - even if they don't know that root meaning themselves.
Check this out: optimism and optimise in English have two significantly different meanings - the latin root 'optimus' apparently means 'best' or 'very good', which makes as much sense, if not more, in both applications of the English.
It's like our language is encoded with morality. 'cult' is bad but 'culture' is good, despite both meaning 'to grow'. The language is no longer a tool but a purpose. Is this what Orwell meant when he said that thing about languages restricting thought?
Could it be that by going far enough back we can find a language that simply exists as a single limitless expression, conveying every possible meaning at once but solely applicable to exactly both the hearer and speakers intentions?
>My understanding of peoples personal ethics feels vastly improved when I investigate the etymology of their words - even if they don't know that root meaning themselves.
This is pure projection.
>>439880 >even if they don't know that root meaning themselves.
>solely applicable to exactly both the hearer and speakers intentions
This is both projection and arrogant.
You highlight the problem with latin in your first sentence beautifully. It is an abstract language, with little nuance and colour. That might make it useful in scientific situations such as classifying species of things, where ambiguity doesn't help, but not so useful in expressing emotions or the range of things that people feel, believe or experience.
Your argument is reactionary, and absurd. Learn to straw man, better.
>>439884 Think you'll find it's Pongo pygmaeus in the beautifully abstract language, m8. The restrictive way you are speaking is encoded with morality.
It sounds like you've just been reading too much into the Whorf hypothesis whose conclusions are largely considered pseudo-scientific. I don't think it's a reliable way to understand or communicate character given that people tend to parrot and it take fucking ages to form a deliberate sentence.
Although I will agree that it does open up a new way of seeing the world when you have another language in the toolbox.
>Could it be that by going far enough back we can find a language that simply exists as a single limitless expression, conveying every possible meaning at once but solely applicable to exactly both the hearer and speakers intentions?
Pictographic would be my best estimate but it's not without its flaws and terrible for abstraction.
Fun fact: We do have one human universal expression which is a mildly surprised upward 'hm' such as when learning an unexpected piece of interesting information. It's fun how upon learning this people make the sound.
>Fun fact: We do have one human universal expression which is a mildly surprised upward 'hm' such as when learning an unexpected piece of interesting information. It's fun how upon learning this people make the sound.
Aren't things like laughing, smiling, or grimacing and crying also universal? "Hm" is hardly an expression, it's more of a primitive grunt like the noise you make when forcing out a difficult shit.
>Could it be that by going far enough back we can find a language that simply exists as a single limitless expression, conveying every possible meaning at once but solely applicable to exactly both the hearer and speakers intentions?
This got me thinking. Is nigger/nigga the only word in the English language that can mean a multitude of things depending on who's saying it and what kind of tone and pronunciation they employ?
Americans are really a different breed. Regular people there are often just as nice or annoying as people back home, if a bit easily excited. But you will experience that American customer service is about as revolting as "American nice" gets. That kind of poorly masked, insincere, exuberant and at the same time emotionally vapid frozen smile with which Murrikins will sell you anything from a hire car to a burger menu just makes you feel strangely violated. I prefer an awkward chat with the disinterested girl at the till in my local shop who can't be arsed to keep eye contact to that kind of Barbie-doll, push-button friendliness any day.
>>439894 Isn't this why Walmart failed in German? Or am I thinking of something else? It isn't just customer service too. When I went driving around some of the states, the weird empty smile I would get genuinely scared me. It was like being in a horror film.
I think they failed in Germany because of labour laws mainly. Wal-Mart is one of those American companies that set up shop in a country first, and ask questions later, and hope that their lawyers will sort things out (Uber is another one). They have actively contributed to the erosion of worker's rights in over a dozen countries that way, by winning court cases and lobbying legislation. Germany traditionally has very tight labour laws and strong unions, and Wal-Mart failed with its usual approach. At some point they just decided to cut their losses and retreat, because as a company basically founded by a family of Arkansas hillbillies, it did not compute to them that they had to follow a host country's rules and couldn't push their own rules on them.
