05-05-2007, 04:50 AM
now that, partly the conversation was already shared, here is the rest. From Husky:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Language is only an approximation of what population groups try to communicate: emotions that they experienced, thoughts and ideas that occurred to them, concepts that only make sense to them ('theology' for instance). When we use other people's terms to communicate our experiences, we are referring to other people's approximations which they had only ever developed to communicate their experiences.
So the errors that have crept in when we try to explain or illustrate in a borrowed language are immense (it's a double approximation where the approximation of using another people's words to explain our own thoughts, is infinitely greater than that of communicating them in our own words). Also many ideas and experiences we have do not have words in the English language and vice-versa.
Language is an imprecise attempt to define what a person or group of people knows - to bring into sound whatever otherwise undefined things were floating in our heads or whatever experiences we have shared. Language is not an attempt to define what we don't know.
As the English have not experienced (that is, do not *know*) what we have, their descriptive set (vocabulary) at best only overlaps with our own - and at times it is just plain insufficiently expressive to vocalise our intentions, knowledge and experiences. Vice-versa too, of course.
- A somewhat tragically poor example illustrating the frustration of language in general: When one uses 'beauty' does the word even express what goes on in one's mind when one feels the appreciation? Looking at a lovely sunset for instance, can that word 'beauty' encapsulate - to any degree - what your private emotions about the event itself was? For me, it's a No. The word is a very, very poor approximation. At best it will indicate to some other person, who has not seen the same sunset and felt the same inspiration on seeing it, that the sunset obviously was of a profound, meaningful (and aesthetically pleasing) import to you. If they have seen some other sunset and loved it, they will be reminded of their own experience when you refer to yours as a vision of beauty. The word 'beauty' in this case is sorely lacking in the ability to express what no words can express.
- In some abstract sense, this frustration is similar to what the same word 'beauty' means when different populations apply it to individuals. Aesthetics has long varied among populations, and even among the same region's population over time. (That it might have slowly started converging nowadays because of everyone the world over being bombarded with boring old hollywood movies where very few are actually attractive, is another matter.) So the word 'beauty', when an Indian used it to describe another, is different from when a colonial British person used it. Tamil people tend to use 'kalai' to indicate some inner radiance or other spectacular quality (associated with our Gods or those who remind us of them) that has no equivalent in English or any other European language I know. A European colonial might never even have considered that same person attractive to whom our ancestors might have applied Kalai.
Language also works in reverse: it has a formative effect. One can become somewhat limited by one's vocabulary: if you can't find words for other ideas, you can't express them (unless you're creative, like Shakespeare was and invent new words like him) and eventually you don't go there. To anglicise one's language is to basically anglicise ('westernise') oneself. If you don't know about or stop using local Indian terms which do not have corresponding words in English, you slowly ignore and forget the associated concept or application of that concept. I often want to use Kalai for instance. I think 'Kalai' and then I say 'magnificent' and a bunch of other English words to approximate the unapproachable Kalai curve. At least I get to use Kalai regularly at home. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Language is only an approximation of what population groups try to communicate: emotions that they experienced, thoughts and ideas that occurred to them, concepts that only make sense to them ('theology' for instance). When we use other people's terms to communicate our experiences, we are referring to other people's approximations which they had only ever developed to communicate their experiences.
So the errors that have crept in when we try to explain or illustrate in a borrowed language are immense (it's a double approximation where the approximation of using another people's words to explain our own thoughts, is infinitely greater than that of communicating them in our own words). Also many ideas and experiences we have do not have words in the English language and vice-versa.
Language is an imprecise attempt to define what a person or group of people knows - to bring into sound whatever otherwise undefined things were floating in our heads or whatever experiences we have shared. Language is not an attempt to define what we don't know.
As the English have not experienced (that is, do not *know*) what we have, their descriptive set (vocabulary) at best only overlaps with our own - and at times it is just plain insufficiently expressive to vocalise our intentions, knowledge and experiences. Vice-versa too, of course.
- A somewhat tragically poor example illustrating the frustration of language in general: When one uses 'beauty' does the word even express what goes on in one's mind when one feels the appreciation? Looking at a lovely sunset for instance, can that word 'beauty' encapsulate - to any degree - what your private emotions about the event itself was? For me, it's a No. The word is a very, very poor approximation. At best it will indicate to some other person, who has not seen the same sunset and felt the same inspiration on seeing it, that the sunset obviously was of a profound, meaningful (and aesthetically pleasing) import to you. If they have seen some other sunset and loved it, they will be reminded of their own experience when you refer to yours as a vision of beauty. The word 'beauty' in this case is sorely lacking in the ability to express what no words can express.
- In some abstract sense, this frustration is similar to what the same word 'beauty' means when different populations apply it to individuals. Aesthetics has long varied among populations, and even among the same region's population over time. (That it might have slowly started converging nowadays because of everyone the world over being bombarded with boring old hollywood movies where very few are actually attractive, is another matter.) So the word 'beauty', when an Indian used it to describe another, is different from when a colonial British person used it. Tamil people tend to use 'kalai' to indicate some inner radiance or other spectacular quality (associated with our Gods or those who remind us of them) that has no equivalent in English or any other European language I know. A European colonial might never even have considered that same person attractive to whom our ancestors might have applied Kalai.
Language also works in reverse: it has a formative effect. One can become somewhat limited by one's vocabulary: if you can't find words for other ideas, you can't express them (unless you're creative, like Shakespeare was and invent new words like him) and eventually you don't go there. To anglicise one's language is to basically anglicise ('westernise') oneself. If you don't know about or stop using local Indian terms which do not have corresponding words in English, you slowly ignore and forget the associated concept or application of that concept. I often want to use Kalai for instance. I think 'Kalai' and then I say 'magnificent' and a bunch of other English words to approximate the unapproachable Kalai curve. At least I get to use Kalai regularly at home. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->