Hacker News Reader

I'm not a linguist but I do enjoy linguistics and language learning as a hobby so I suppose I've gained a certain perspective that I feel most monolinguals lack.

Basically here's my rule of thumb: any linguistic claim coming from a mainstream source which seems to imply the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis[1] or other kind of objective criteria to compare languages is a huge red flag and extremely likely to be entirely bullshit. Out of those claims the "language X is more precise/able to express more nuance than Y" is probably the reddest flag of them all.

I think generalities about languages ("French like to say no") fall in the same category as horoscopes: if they're vague and general enough you'll probably recognize yourself in them to some extent. People like to feel special, they like to feel special for speaking a given language so they'll gladly accept any claim that sets them apart.

>If true (I suspect a methodology shenanigan there) I really doubt this is a factor. Very few French or English speaker will have a mastery of 70,000 words, to say nothing of 500,000.

Yeah, this claim alone shows that the author really stayed at surface level. I suspect the main reason for these numbers is that English, traditionally less prescriptive than French, considers basically any word once used in an English text to be an English word while French curates more heavily. The average English speaker definitely doesn't draw from a reservoir of 500k words, probably closer to a tenth of that. Maybe somebody could link this website to the author: http://testyourvocab.com/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

Surface level. Sums up the book pretty well if you ask me. Started not too bad with some anecdotes, yet didn't build up on that on any depth. Maybe helpful, or with some bad luck quite the opposite, for people without any intercultural experience themselves. For people with some experience it is just common sense.

One other point the book misses is the complexity of all of that. Only hinted at are the effect personality has. Let alone the overlaying patterns of culture, personality and organizational culture.

And yes, the theoretical basis is almost totally absent.

"Out of those claims the "language X is more precise/able to express more nuance than Y" is probably the reddest flag of them all."

It seems like there are plenty of cases where some language is able to express some nuance another is not. It's just that there will be some tradeoff in return because there isn't a language that has all the details. The real problem is the implication that because some language is nominally superior in some particular dimension ("more precise", "more nuanced", "more deeply integrated into the grammar") in the vast set of dimensions languages have then it must be somehow "better", or that we can assume this relationship will be shown in all possible dimensions of comparison.

But I agree it gets oversold. English can't properly express the concept of schadenfreude... except I just did, because we imported it because we liked it, and it's an English word now too.

Right, that's what I had in mind. Just because some language doesn't have a "built-in" word or grammatical feature doesn't mean that it's impossible to express the concept. Spanish has two words for "to be", one for temporary states (I'm tired) and one for more permanent attributes (I'm tall). Because English only has "to be" doesn't mean that it's incapable of communicating this nuance when necessary.

>Out of those claims the "language X is more precise/able to express more nuance than Y" is probably the reddest flag of them all.

This may be nonsense as an overall comparison between languages but this is definitely the case for specific concepts. Here is a paper where the reactions of 30 Dutch people and 30 Jahai tribesman to a set of odors were compared:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...

First two paragraphs of the conclusion:

Olfactory abstraction varies across cultures: while Dutch participants confirmed the often-touted claim that ‘olfactory abstraction is impossible’ [19] by providing mostly concrete language in response to odours, Jahai speakers overwhelmingly described odours with dedicated, abstract language. In addition, their responses were faster and shorter, providing converging evidence that the Jahai are communicatively adept in talking about odours.

Even for the monomolecular odours used in this study, which do not have a single object entity associated with them, Dutch participants predominantly tried to identify a source (e.g. flowers), or situation (e.g. house that isn't aired), corresponding to that aroma. Their grappling to identify concrete sources was in sharp contrast to the fluent abstract Jahai responses. Previous studies have shown that Standard Average Europeans struggle to identify odours [5,13–16], as also illustrated by the Dutch here. The greater ease of linguistic expression demonstrated by the Jahai is not unique, however. It appears that hunter-gatherer communities in particular find odours easier to talk about [23].

It's not really an objectionable concept. It's essentially the same as how any kind of discipline with a reasonable amount of information to learn comes up with their own terms. It makes it easier to navigate relevant information.

This paper shows that Jahai are capable of "olfactory abstraction" but I don't see how that says anything about the respective languages. I mean the last sentence:

>The greater ease of linguistic expression demonstrated by the Jahai is not unique, however. It appears that hunter-gatherer communities in particular find odours easier to talk about.

If that's true that probably means that they have a greater need to express these concepts and as such have become better at it and developed a specific jargon. Maybe if they tried with tulips or windmills they'd find that the Dutch are much better able to describe them succinctly.

Besides the paper says that the Dutch subjects are urban dwellers while the "All Jahai still pursue traditional foraging, although they reside in a resettlement village much of the time, and so are exposed to modernity". Attributing the results solely to linguistic differences would be rather bold (and the paper doesn't in fact do that as far as I can tell>

So if you're saying "culture which have a lot of exposition to X and often need to precisely talk about X develop linguistic tools to do it efficiently" then yeah, that seems fairly uncontroversial. Just look at any HN technical discussion about "bugs", "segfaults", "DDOS" or "transpilers". I still don't think it makes a good case for comparing entire languages as a whole.

>I still don't think it makes a good case for comparing entire languages as a whole.

I wasn't making such a case. I was pointing out that in limited contexts, different languages may have more or less effective means for accurately describing things within that context.

Attempting to place a valuation on languages and comparing them wholesale is stupid, but that doesn't imply that a language can't be lacking in vocabulary in some space compared to another. That also doesn't mean that there is something fundamentally keeping it from developing vocabulary for such spaces. Which I'm sure they do in niche spaces, such as the academy.

I can't disagree more with "language X is more precise/able to express more nuance than Y"

Japanese has 4 words for "If" each one is used in a different set of circumstances and has a slightly different meaning and flavor.

http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/conditionals#Ho...

While all of those circumstances are covered by the English "If", the flavor and connotation is lost.

Similarly with Japanese and personal pronouns.

There is one word for "I" in English, but many many words for "I" in Japanese, each with it's own flavor and implications.

http://nihonshock.com/2009/11/the-many-ways-to-say-i/

These other "I"s express additional information about the person using them. It's not that this information cannot be expressed alternatively, but it's very efficient to simply use the right "I" to convey the right meaning.

>It's not that this information cannot be expressed alternatively

So we agree then.

>but it's very efficient to simply use the right "I" to convey the right meaning.

How do you quantify efficiency here? Having more generic words can arguably be more efficient in situations where you don't actually care about which "I" you want to communicate: "I want an ice cream Sunday please". Besides some languages (and I believe Japanese to be one of them) are pro-drop and let you drop the pronouns in most cases, isn't that even more efficienter?

My native language is French, which unlike English kept the T/V (thou/you) nuance. You have familiar you and polite you. Do you consider that more efficient? Because as somebody who's usually pretty shy I've often found myself in awkward social situations where I simply want to say "how are you?" and "vous" feels too formal but at the same time I worry that "tu" might be a bit too brash and quite frankly I'd gladly trade them for a generic, neutral English-style "you" in situations like these.

Some other romance languages, like Brazilian Portuguese for instance, almost completely dropped the T/V distinction. Are they becoming less efficient or more?

What you describe comes across more like versatility.

It could be argued either way.

You could say its more efficient not to have the T/V distinction because then you don't have to think about how you want to express yourself.

Conversely, if you wanted to be very polite or very rude, people would have to rely more on context or vocal cues. Thus less efficient because now you have to express the politeness or rudeness in other ways.

But in Japanese, you are not only convening politeness information, which can be in the form of polite verbs (Keigo), polite verb endings, and polite pronouns, and honorifics, you are also partially conveying your own perception of your self importance and sense of masculinity or femininity.

> US: shallow enthusiasm, shallow friendships, fake excitement

I'm an American living in France for 10 years; the capacity for smoothing over awkward situations with heaps of bullshit is ubiquitous in France as well.

> Let's make something together" Apparently these are non-committal statement in US

As is the 'non' in French/France.

Some of what you are talking about is really more about politeness than high and low context cultures. There is certainly a connection but high context has more emphasis on the sort of "it isn't what you say but how you say it" kind of meaning. High and low context are just extremes and most cultures are somewhere in between. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context...

I am really suspicious that this English speaker found out other English-speaking and Germanic countries to be low-context.

I suspect there is a strong bias in what you assume to be the baseline among humans and that you will integrate a huge chunk of your own culture into it.

I am curious of his methodology when it comes to sort cultures like that.

To be fair, the article identifies Ireland and the American South to be high context regions. But yeah, there's a pretty strong overlap between "high context" and "Germanic speaking" in that article.

(Ireland is of course Celtic, but America and Australia aren't really "Germanic" in a non-linguistic sense.)

Was English high or low around the 1700s/early 1800s? A lot of Southern mannerisms and formalities are based on English traditions around the time of the colonies. Especially the rural south.

> I was told several time (and experienced) that Americans love to say yes, and not follow through, which is a pretty rude thing in France. "Why don't we have lunch one day?" "you should come to my house!" "Let's make something together" Apparently these are non-committal statement in US. In France they are. That's why being able to say no is far more important.

Agree, and this is not unique to the US. Casual proposals to do stuff together in the future without follow-up happens pretty much everywhere - it being something more like a commitment is rather an exception than the rule.

I don't know typical these examples are, but "you should come to my house" would be regarded as quite committal in France because people don't invite people to their house lightly. It suggests intimity between the persons.

If you have a work colleague that you get along very well with and get close to then perhaps after a couple of years you could extend such invitation.

Nah, the reason it's committal in France in non-committal in America is because France is much more of a homogeneous culture than America.

Having one meaning for a single phrase is much easier when you know exactly how your words are going to be perceived.

Trying to say shallow in this situation is more of a case that you, as a French person - don't really want to accept the fact that other cultures may have a different opinion on why they are acting the way they are acting.

If you read my previous comment you'll notice that I am only describing the culture. I am not refusing to accept anything.

You are refusing to accept that speaking of your feelings openly may be perceived as shallow as not speaking about them. It’s just that you somehow assume that French do it better.

I should probably start keeping a list of all the various uses of that ”but X is much more homogenous than the US!” argument. It’s just a semantic stopsign, difficult to argue against because hey, that really sounds like a cum hoc ergo propter hoc but I guess it’s sort of plausible so what do I know? The causation is, of course, always presented as an accepted fact, not as a hypothesis with even a shred of confounder-controlled evidence. It’s just really tiresome.

´In France we value frankness and we don't find it commendable to hide your feelings or your opinions. If you promise something you have to follow through. You are going to receive a lot of "non" because of that, because "oui" really means "oui".´

The more south you are in France the less this is true, I would even argue the same is generaly true for europe a part for the UK.

> I would even argue the same is generaly true for europe a part for the UK.

I guess you meant:

and part of the UK

I tickled me no end though. The thought of Europe being a part of the UK, what would Farage do? :)

> I was told several time (and experienced) that Americans love to say yes, and not follow through, which is a pretty rude thing in France. "Why don't we have lunch one day?" "you should come to my house!" "Let's make something together" Apparently these are non-committal statement in US. In France they are. That's why being able to say no is far more important.

I wonder if the French are better at reading body language and social contextual clues so as to not make such offers either too early in a developing relationship or to someone who would really never be interested in the first place. In my experience these offers tend to overwhelmingly come from people who are oblivious to the fact that they and I are not particularly socially compatible.

There are many different cultures in the US. "you should come to my house!" is an expression in some parts - an expression that has gotten trouble for people in other parts who take the expression literally and show up when they were not wanted.

Interesting! Which part(s) of the US do not mean this literally? What does it mean in that context?

In the midwest if someone invites your over to their house they are hoping you come visit.

In other parts (the south, but I'm not sure where, maybe North Carolina?) it is an expression that just means nice to see you.

Note because it is an expression in some parts you hear it often from those people. People from the other parts don't invite people over often so they rarely say it. Thus the impression that it is universally used, when it is only a small region that says it often.

Historically people in America arrived from all over the world, from different cultures and traditions, so it has probably been safer to interact politely rather than sincerely.

Surely there's no contradiction between polite and sincere. How can someone be polite and not sincere? The American tendency towards excessive but superficial politeness strikes me, from another immigrant country, as being quite rude.

I would rather you be honest. How else can I know what you mean? Indeed, this seems to be required of a person in a low context culture where everyone comes from somewhere else.

>> How can someone be polite and not sincere?

"Does this dress make me look fat?"

"No, of course not, my dear"

One could argue that there's no insincerity there: "your body makes you look fat, not this dress" ;-)

Though one could argue that withholding the truth is insincere as well.

Anyway, I agree you can be polite and not sincere: on ocassion, it's required (especially if your opinion is not based on enough evidence).

I suspect the 500,000 words claim comes from the Oxford dictionary, which I understand includes old english, whereas as far as I am aware the most famous french dictionaries (Larousse, Robert) typically don’t include old french.

But it feels inconsistent with my experience of those two languages. I feel French is more expressive, largely down to tricks that are valid french like being able to use any adjective as a verb (like he le gros, tu viens?), effectively creating words on the fly.

i also think this original statement as complete BS. French has much more grammatical rules than english due to its latin roots (but less than other eastern european language), which is what makes a language precise and unambiguous.

Not really to do with old english, it comes from the fact that there are loads of borrowed French words in English (and loads of words from other languages). For example the french word for 'appointment' -> 'rendezvous' is used in English to mean a specific kind of meeting 'I heard Mary's husband had a rendezvous with that woman in accounts' to allude to an illicit meeting with sexy connotations or 'meet at the rendezvous for extract at 1830 hours' in a military context. There are also many cases where we use a French word which has a specific meaning in English to sound educated rather than string together a combination of simpler english words which predate the Norman conquest. e.g. 'He ascended the stairs' without the Norman influence would be 'He went up the stairs'. I speak terrible French, but if I find myself in a situation where I don't know the right word I think of the english word and if it ends in ion, end, able, there is a good chance it is a French word and dropping it into my sentence while pronouncing it in a 'ello 'ello accent will often vaguely help things along.

Other interesting examples 'chit' from Hindi, 'galore' from Gaelic.