Did I read somewhere its a socio-survival technique? — Daniel Duffy

Sounds right.

Mathematics and logic seem "better" (for deeply rather than shallowly adapting to nature) than natural languages.

We naturally try to conform to the crowd, strength in numbers etc. — Daniel Duffy

Or, we have the gift of empathy and find ourselves 'assimilating' in as a sign of respect and love.

Lets approach this as an engineer would. What do you mean by "better"? Do we want a language to be terse or verbose? The former is easy to learn but lacks nuance, while the later is more difficult to learn but has more fine tuned expression.

Should a language be strictly enforced or lax? The former creates a very strict and uncreative language while the later allows creative evolution.

If you can clearly define what is better, then you can determine if there is a better language for those parameters. Of course, claiming something is better does not prove that it is better either. Just some things to consider before there can be a clear answer.

Agreed. Is that empathy a learned response to maintain group cohesion? I’m not saying I believe that’s the case, but biologically, is empathy a symptom of that cohesion? I might look into that

Well English has more total words in it's vocabulary than any other language. In addition learning English as a second language increases compensation more than learning any other language.

Is that empathy a learned response to maintain group cohesion? I’m not saying I believe that’s the case, but biologically, is empathy a symptom of that cohesion? — Daniel Duffy

Given we are a social species and tribal apes, our survival and our strength has been collaboration and cooperation, so perhaps we could argue that empathy provides strong evolutionary benefits. Where you sit on this will depend upon your presuppositions. If you believe in transcendent realities (a cosmic consciousness or god surrogate) you might be inclined to believe that empathy is from a divine spark which animates human behavior.

I think that because it was reported in the field by a linguist. Sicilians do not use future tense and are widely regarded as being short-sighted/fun-loving.

There are numerous instances in languages that show differences in cognitive function. In South Korean motherese focuses on prepositions where in practically every other culture nouns are the primary focus. This had an actual impact on perception and there is a measurable difference up until the age of 5-6.

German clearly impacts Germans too. There language is particularly literal and every european I spoke to living in Berlin remarked about how literal Germans were as the most significant cultural difference.

As to ‘better’ that is the open question.

For me it is clear that languages are different and that if there is a difference then one is to be better than another. — I like sushi

Yes, I'd say one is better than another, to me (being a multilingual). One is good for daily spoken language, but not for writing a powerful declamation. Another is writing comedy -- I would have to switch the style or even the type of comedy with one language, and use another style and topic if using another language.

(I shouldn't say "better" -- it is politically and culturally unacceptable to say this).

(I shouldn't say "better" -- it is politically and culturally unacceptable to say this). — L'éléphant

Why? I think more harm is caused if you pretend there is no difference, and act like languages are equal in every respect. That said, I would not as far as to say the differences are all that significant.

I recall Buckminster saying how we use up and down is kind of primitive now we know about gravity. He said we should really modernise and start saying into and out of (referring to gravitation fields). Just watching some weird TikTok person recently saying ‘like’ about 20 times in one minute got me thinking about the possible degradation of colloquial speech and whether they is anything to be overly concerned about. I find it amusing when people have no idea what acronyms mean sometimes. Blog is that a surprising amount of people do not know the origin of.

German clearly impacts Germans too. There language is particularly literal and every european I spoke to living in Berlin remarked about how literal Germans were as the most significant cultural difference. — I like sushi

You've got studies showing that the language makes the person more literal and less figurative?

Assuming such could be measured, you'd have to prove it was the language and not the culture resulting in that. It'd be like saying the Dutch are humorless because Dutch isn't a funny language, and so try as we might, we can't tell a joke in Dutch.

Maybe you can send me a link to the study or studies. As @Hanover said, it's more likely just cultural stuff that's being seen there. At least that would be my base presumption until evidence was offered otherwise.

One is good for daily spoken language, but not for writing a powerful declamation. — L'éléphant

Are you just identifying your subjective opinion, or are you saying something objective?

As in, you think you better express yourself with painting than sculpture, or are you saying that sculpture is the truly best way to express certain perspectives?

Seems the former would be the only sustainable claim.

Do we native English speakers use these common phrases because French better conveys the meaning, or are we just accustomed to it by this point? — Daniel Duffy

Both. We must be reminded that France was the language of culture in England for a few centuries, and even after that faded away, French would later soon the lingua franca of Europe and then of many corners of the world until the 20th century.

I couldn't find any articles on whether German was a better language for expressing matters literally, likely because such a thesis is horseshit, but I did find one that tried to arrive at a way to distinguish the literal from the idiomatic, which would be the first step in testing such a theory. The brick wall though I suspect will be in defining "better."

https://aclanthology.org/E17-4011/

I find English the best language for science, literature, and poetry, but that's because all other language is gibberish to me. Might as well be barking like a dog if you're going to speak something other than English to me.

I think that because it was reported in the field by a linguist. Sicilians do not use future tense and are widely regarded as being short-sighted/fun-loving. — I like sushi

Your original claim was that one determined the other:

If you lack use of tenses (like Sicilians) then you are less likely to plan ahead — I like sushi

Did your mysterious linguist present evidence for the link, or just the lack of tenses? Nobody has argued with the latter.

And whether or not Sicilians are “widely regarded” (by whom?) as short-sighted is irrelevant. Is this more than just the stereotype it appears to be? Maybe what some mainland or Northern Italians habitually say about Sicilians? At most it sounds like a cultural trait that has nothing to do with the language.

German clearly impacts Germans too. There language is particularly literal and every european I spoke to living in Berlin remarked about how literal Germans were as the most significant cultural difference. — I like sushi

People say this kind of thing all the time. It’s just folklore. Or as @Hanover puts it, horseshit.

The fluent speaker of a language is an expert user of that language, but not necessarily an expert otherwise. An average German can’t be trusted any more than an average Mongolian to assess the extent of linguistic determinism among Germans, so what Berliners happened to tell you is irrelevant.

EDIT: I misread your comment. You actually mentioned what Europeans said, rather than Berliners. Well, that’s equally irrelevant.

but that's because all other language is gibberish to me — Hanover

:lol:

Might as well be barking like a dog if you're going to speak something other than English to me. — Hanover

Might as well be barking at all times.

Are the manner in which some languages are structured more ‘logical’ then? I would English is certainly not particularly ‘logical’ as it is backwards in terms of sentence structure and adjective compared to others for a start. Then there is the multiplicity of terms (small, little).

it is backwards in terms of sentence structure and adjective compared to others for a start — I like sushi

What do you mean it is backwards?

At any rate, I think you are trying to arrive at Ithkuil: https://www.ithkuil.net/

Formal languages (i.e. systems of substitution-rules) are "more logical" in structure than natural languages (i.e. conventions of ambiguity-constraints) which, IMO, are more semantic kluges than "logical structures".

Are some natural languages more logical than others though?

One of my biggest gripes with people discussing ethics/philosophy is that they believe ‘true’ is wholly applicable to pure abstract forms.

As I said with German do you think that is more logical?

Another matter I recall was when the European countries grouped together for political discourse Greek was given serious consideration as the Greek to mediate through as it was more suited to easy communication. They went for English simply because it was more universal not because it was the best suited.

I suppose folk linguistics, as exhibited by @I like sushi, is actually pretty interesting as an anthropological phenomenon.

The question I have is this: is my cantankerousness about folk linguistics justified? Does folk linguistics in fact contain nuggets of wisdom and could it actually support scientific linguistics somehow? This would mean that it can't just be rejected as horseshit, which is my first instinct. Note that I'm not saying, e.g., that Germans really are literal-minded because the language is more literal than others.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that German is more literal than other languages. Does anyone have examples?

It occurs to me that rather than short-sightedness, Sicilians are much more famous for a culture of vendetta, which involves conflicts that last for decades, where revenge is planned and enacted in spans of many years. Whatever their lack of tenses, it doesn't seem to hinder their conception of past and future.

This stuff is so dumb, I'm back to being cantankerous again.

I was wasting my time it seems. Not even got going yet.

Guess this is how things are now here.

Bye bye :)

I was wasting my time it seems. Not even got going yet.

Guess this is how things are now here.

Bye bye :) — I like sushi

Talk to me. I have a knack for these things. Not languages or even philosophy, but being able to connect to and with those who feel unfairly treated, unheard, or ignored.

I will not insult you by reminding you of basic logic and premise structure. But so I can be sure we are on the same page, answer me the following, if you please. It would make my evening if you did.

A.) What is your concern or argument? If there is no argument what is the desired path you wish to take this general discussion toward? What is the goal, other than enlightened if not farfetched debate reaching into the most obscure regions of the topic? (Perhaps, this is it!)

B.) Why do you feel the opinions and judgement of your judgement merits disengagement? Is this perhaps what you are accustomed to, be it here or other places? On The Philosophy Forum, no one knows you, personally that is. One could say, you have a new life here. With no judgement or constraints of any past or current life. Why throw it away when you have people all over the world who wish to engage with you? (Perhaps... dare I say, one might be a bit selfish to deny one's thoughts and beliefs to an eager public)

C.) So what if some languages are better than others. I am better than you at certain things, assuredly, at least one could hope, just as you no doubt are better at certain things than myself or any of your critics here! What, may I ask, drove up this thought in your mind that led you to create this thread. Are you perhaps studying language yourself? Do you know multiple languages? Have you attempted to and found great difficulty in doing so? Do you find yourself unable to have these sort of discussions with those in your life or perhaps find those disagreeable as well?

If you please, mind you. Discussion forums are voluntary, you could easily sign off and never return. Which would sadden me, to an extent. Please be considerate of others who enjoy your contribution here and at least consider responding.

Thanks,

A friend :)

A language consists of a trade-off of semantic ideals that includes (among others) universality versus domain-specific authenticity, expressiveness versus efficiency, communicability versus idiosyncratic privacy, reliability vs adaptability.

I was wasting my time it seems. Not even got going yet.

Guess this is how things are now here.

Bye bye — I like sushi

I think the problem with this thread generally is that there is pretty concise answer to the question of whether certain languages are better than others, and that is that they are not.

The question though is understandable from an instinctive level. That is, it would seem that English would be a better medium to explain the theory of relativity than would a tribal language from the Amazon rainforest. That is, surely the complexities of that topic are better explained with a language that has evolved in an environment where such matters have been considered, whereas perhaps the rainforest language would be better at explaining the things common only in the rainforest.

And then we think of specialty languages within our language, like when we hear doctors speak, barely understanding what they say. Surely their language is better than my simple English that lacks such terms.

This is to say that your question is understandable and your replies to the responses to your question are instinctive, but the solution to the question isn't so much found in sorting through a debate on the topic, but it's found by researching the topic. What this means is that while I may speak Amazon speak or have no knowledge of medical terminology, I could, assuming I had the intellectual ability to understand such matters, be trained in medicine with a book written in Amazon speak or one written without reliance on specialty terms. That's just the case, whether it seems on a gut level not to be.

So if this response I'm now providing could have been stated before, why did others (myself included) throw a little ridicule your way? It's twofold I guess. The first is that the debate wasn't taken seriously by those who already knew the answer, but who would have only taken it seriously if there were someone somewhere taking seriously the thesis you're advancing, which could have only been shown by citing to some article or some new school of thought on the issue. The second is that posters (including myself) are not always arriving with an educational temperment when we post, but instead arrive with a combative, adversarial approach, which is understandable as well, as the bulk of us are ornery middle aged men overly connected to our computers.

All of this is to say is that the resignation within your last post was a solid move, having made me rethink our purpose here, as to whether it's to generally educate and discuss or whether it's to aggresively point out failings. I'm thinking probably both.

So if this response I'm now providing could have been stated before, why did others (myself included) throw a little ridicule your way? It's twofold I guess. The first is that the debate wasn't taken seriously by those who already knew the answer, but who would have only taken it seriously if there were someone somewhere taking seriously the thesis you're advancing, which could have only been shown by citing to some article or some new school of thought on the issue. The second is that posters (including myself) are not always arriving with an educational temperment when we post, but instead arrive with a combative, adversarial approach, which is understandable as well, as the bulk of us are ornery middle aged men overly connected to our computers. — Hanover

Personally, I treated it with derision partly because I'm in a scraptious mood, and also because I'm upset by the stupidity that surrounds me: bigotry, stereotypes, conspiracy theories, the paranormal, and the brazen lack of interest in learning. Folk linguistics is in the same ballpark. I believe in shutting down this stupidity instead of exposing it, because the latter is too much work.

Note that @I like sushi is no more interested in the polite, friendly, and calm objections from @Baden or from you than aggressive interlocutors like me. That's because it was a Lounge discussion from the start and Sushi had no intention of thinking.

But it may well be the case that my approach is a bad one, and, Merry Christmas.

Are some natural languages more logical than others though? — I like sushi

If some are, then trivially so.

As I said with German do you think that is more logical?

I don't find it so (though I've never been fluent). As far as I can tell, Goethe's verse isn't "more logical" than Shakespeare's and Hegel's metaphysics is far more opague than C.S. Peirce's.