BigManWeek+4

So I've been thinking lately. And this may have nothing to do with the

reading but I've been dying to ask this:

What constitutes an original thought? What even is an original thought? Is it

just a mutation of our brain? And what of these civilizations and cultures

from ages past that supposedly knew more than we do now? If we progress,

we're not the first. So are we really innovating? Or are we caught in a

cultural cycle of discovery and forgetting? Are these "savages," then, just

in a different part of the cycle than we, the "civilized" cultures, are?

It makes my brain hurt to think even that this thought might be recycled, as

well as the thought about this thought being recycled and so on.

When the Thomson article was discussing how people can't conceptualize ideas that don't exist in their language. I heard something to the fact that the romantic languages were more suited towards arts and that Germanic languages are better suited to science. I am curious if there is any truth in this and whether it relates to the strength of German in the the early 20th century. Basically, I'm wondering if there has been any connections with the languague of a culture speaks and their cultural strengths in arts or sciences/mathematics.

Another slightly related thought I had was that it would be very interesting if someone was born in a manner such that their brain interpreted colors differently. For example what the general population perceived as green this individual thought was what the general public perceived as blue. Basically they would just have all of their names for colors changed. However, it would seem like it would be very difficult to test this or know if it was even happening.

After watching the "Find Our Talk" film, I thought about how the Ktunaxa were teach their language to students in the community. It seemed to me like the video presented it as the only individuals who are learning the language are of Ktunaxa descent.If the people truly want their language to live on, why <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">don't they try to teach it to others beyond the scope of the villages and can <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">spread it? The more individuals who know the language and can teach it, will <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">prevent the language from dying out.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">What is done when a concept or idea is encountered in a culture that can't be directly or exactly translated into the language the anthropologist speaks? Are new terms defined for these ideas or is a best possible approximation made, what are some examples of these?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">In the reading "Worlds Shaped by Words" it was mentioned how the English <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">language is getting sloppy or at least less distinctive. This slow erosion of <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">a language can make it ineffective, it can not adequately allow a person to <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">express themselves. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">This got me to thinking that if our language is slowly eroding and becoming <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">"clumsy and ineffectual" wouldn't we just create new words or new ways of <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">describing this in order for communication to be effective? Or is our <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">language eroding because we are using language less for style and description <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">and more of a way to simple get the point across?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">In the article, The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Worlds Shaped by Words, by <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">David S. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">Thompson, the topic of the euphemism in relation to history and wars is <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">brought <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">up. That very horrible actions are given candy coating to make them sound <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">necessary, the right course of action, and paint the other country as wrong. I <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">was wondering with all these euphemism covering up the actions and the <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">fact that <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">winners write history, is it possible that in the future all the euphemism <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">written in history by the winner will eventually distort history to the point <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">where we do not know what happened? Furthermore, how do we not know we are at <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">this point already? That the history we have been learning is just made <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">up and euphemism-ed to the point of distortion.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">media type="youtube" key="3Z2vU8M6CYI" height="315" width="560"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">In "Does Your Language Shape How You Think?", Deutscher draws on studies <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">that show that in languages where objects are assigned grammatical <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">genders, these objects also tend to be associated with gender <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">traits/characteristics. The objects mentioned include bridges and forks, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">which, as objects, aren't designed for one gender or another. Have <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">similar studies have been conducted with objects having grammatical <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">gender and being designed for a particular gender? For example, in <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">French, une chemise (grammatically feminine) means a man's shirt, and un <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">chemisier (grammatically masculine) means a woman's shirts. I have to <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">assume that the actual physical gender associations of these objects <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">negate the grammatical gender associations, but maybe they don't.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">As a am reading the piece Thomson I was interested in the quote “Nobody would be able to answer such a question, for a people’s language is so completely embedded in their consciousness that they would be unable to conceive of any other way of interpreting the world.” Does this mean that can people only think in terms of what their language allows them too? If so- that means that the term language barrier is more literal than I ever thought. There is literally a barrier stopping us from thinking past the point of anything that has already been pre-defined by the language we speak. (I feel like that is kind of stressful because think of all of the opportunities and discoveries that have been missed because of a lack of words to not just describe them but to even think of them!)

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">If that is the case- where does art fit into language? Can a person draw what words cannot say?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">This piece was really interesting and made me think…and now I am really thinking! And considering learning 32857 languages.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">The study of language was dissected in the three articles this week. When discussing the various facets of language, it seems that we focus primarily on the actual verbalization of thoughts and feelings. Is enough emphasis placed on those things that go unsaid? Is it possible that what is not being said in a given culture holds greater significance than those things that members of society are consciously choosing to say? The true indicators of what a society values are found in what they omit. Whether the given language does not have a word to describe a particular emotion, or the community has historically never put emphasis on discussing a particular component of life, choosing not to communicate is just as active of a decision as verbally communicating. We can all think of a time when silence was more powerful than any permutation of letters and words could ever be. Stigma is often attached to the concepts that certain words embody. What about the stigma felt from omission?