Comment by pcthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

But meaning (and even understanding of the world) is shaped by the language. Think of how one language has 40 words for different kinds of happiness, another doesn't have the word blue.

My question was "would natural hyperpolyglot be better capable of learning/using programming languages", and I don't think any of what you said tells us one way or the other. Yes, the things being expressed with programming languages are different from the things being expressed with natural languages, but they are both designed for expression and communicating meaning. I'd love to see studies on whether there's any relationship between being able to easily pick up and retain human languages, and the same for programming languages.

edit: note, that I'm not even asking if someone with an aptitude for human languages would be good at using programming languages. Obviously the logical components, required for doing a lot of things with them, are a completely separate skill.

I'm only wondering if he'd have an aptitude for learning a language, in terms of syntax, grammar, standard library and associated methods, idioms.

Programming languages are more akin to such things as musical notation, electrical circuits, architectural schematics, and legal writing.

At least that's what a linguist suggested to me when I lamented my inability to learn some foreign languages as well as peers.

They're all shorthand abstract systems that define static relationships between a fairly small number of symbols arranged in a fairly small number of ways to define a fairly small set of meanings.

Example: a circuit diagram. You have a transistor and some other components, and if you know the language you can recognise it as an emitter follower. It's a very concrete and clear mapping.

There aren't many things you can do with a transistor. When you've learned them all, that's basically it.

Human languages are much bigger. If you ignore the alphabet level and start with words, there are thousands of symbols (tens of thousands for advanced users). And most of language is about implication and context.

If a partner says "What time will you be back tonight?" that can mean anything from "Because my car is still in the garage, can I borrow your car?" to "Are you still having an affair?" to "Will you make it in time for curfew?"

In most conversations and a lot of writing, the words are hints, not explicit mappings to defined meanings. You can parse an immediate meaning without knowing the context, but not the full meaning.

So it's a much harder problem. You have to learn basic grammar and vocab for tens of thousands of symbols, then learn standard basic exchanges in social situations, then special forms, idioms and social register, then implication and subtext.

Good point. Physicists even call mathematics a “language,” which obviously has no implications whatsoever as to how easy (or hard) it is for a talented polyglot to learn it.

Aside:

I am not aware of strong evidence for linguistic relatively. Only some light stuff like some two words rhyme in a language so they are more likely paired in music and poetry than in other languages where they don't rhyme.

It is much more plausible that human understanding of the world has shaped language. We can expand our vocabulary for our needs. Skiers of any language likely know more words for snow than speakers of their same language who only want to hang out on the beach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com