Language: ‘untranslatable’ words tell us more about English speakers than other cultures

[Paco Dennis]

I am fascinated with the use of language, words, and symbols on how our minds construct reality. Our mind and emotions are directly connected...that is where we get our "life".


"When the word “hygge” became popular outside Denmark a few years ago, it seemed the perfect way to express the feeling of wrapping yourself up in a crocheted blanket with a cosy jumper, a cup of tea and back-to-back episodes of The Bridge. But is it really only the Danes, with their cold Scandinavian evenings, who could have come up with a word for such a specific concept? And is it only the Swedes who could have needed the verb “fika” to describe chatting over a coffee?

The internet abounds with words that lack a single-word English equivalent. In order to be really lacking an English equivalent, it must be a single, indivisible unit of meaning, as phrases are infinitely productive and can be created on demand by combining different words. Take, for example, the claim by Adam Jacot de Boinod in I Never Knew There Was A Word For It, that Malay has a word for the gap between the teeth that English lacks: “gigi rongak”. Well, this appears to be a phrase, and it translates literally as the perfectly cromulent English phrase “tooth gap”.

In fact, English even has a single-word technical term for a gap between the teeth: “diastema”. Okay, that’s actually a Greek word, but it’s in use in English, so it’s also an English word. Does that matter?

Where we get our words from tells us something about our history. Take, for instance, Quechua – the language spoken by people indigenous to the Andes and the South American highlands. The Quechuan word for “book” is “liwru”, which comes from the Spanish word “libro”, because Spanish colonisers introduced written forms of language to the people they conquered. In fact, English does now have a word for “hygge” – it’s “hygge”.

Cultures in language

It is often said that Eskimos have 50 words for snow, but it’s a myth that has been comprehensively dismantled, probably first of all by Laura Martin in 1986. “Eskimo” is a somewhat meaningless term anyway, but the structure of the languages spoken by peoples such as the Inuit or Aleut in the Arctic Circle are very synthetic, meaning that each “word” may comprise many parts or “morphemes”.

Entire phrases can be contained within words in these languages – a single “word” may literally mean “fallen snow”. For that reason, “having 50 words for snow” in these languages is about as remarkable as having 50 sentences to talk about snow in English."

4 minute read

https://theconversation.com/languag...t-english-speakers-than-other-cultures-100841

 

[feywon]

Interesting article. Makes some good points. A lot of indigenous belief systems got distorted, misunderstood by translators (often priests who would have a vested interested in 'demonizing' the indigenous beliefs).

My feelings about language revolve around how we use and misuse it. Read S.I. Hayakawa's 'Language in Thought and Action' in my teens and have referred back to it often over the years. It reinforced concepts my Dad had taught me about being as clear as possible in what you say--especially when discussing potentially contentious events, actions etc.

i've known most of my life that not everyone is as careful about how they say things. i ask questions to clarify. Don't want to 'challenge/criticize' what they've said if they were just careless about their word choices rather than actually implying unsavory things or being unpleasant.

While many like to blame the lack of facial expressions and body language for misunderstandings online, few will genuinely look at their words choices, or the judgements they make about those who disagree with them about something. Which leads me to another problem--double standards--people who want one set of 'rules' for themselves but hold others to stricter standards. Which is exacerbated by the human tendency to label one's own behavior (and those they think of as 'their people') with the positive word for whatever action. But if someone they disagree a with, dislike or is simply not in their 'circle' does the same action it is likely to get negatively labeled. The clearest example of this is the persistent/stubborn dichotomy---the same behavior is being described but it gets labeled different depending on how the speaker feels about the person.