Hacker News Reader

I think it's rather probable that speakers of different languages think different. So a unified language might lead to (more) unified thinking. I'm not sure if that would be a good or bad thing.

View on HN

I believe that's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis), which I generally agree with. A universal language would change the way people think about stuff -- it's a very interesting thought experiment.

There is also a lot of evidence contradicting the Whorf hypothesis. In <The Language Instinct> by Steven Pinker, Pinker suggests that humans think with separate thought-modules and then only express the substance of thoughts through arbitrary languages.

That being said, I think there is something to be said for diversity of culture, and perhaps better more fluid translation services are the true solution.

Notice I hedged my bets with "generally agree with"

The fact that the question is still open is why (in my opinion) the thought experiment is so interesting.

That seems like an interesting concept that I would some day like to dive into...how do you rate the book overall?

And the flip-side of this idea is that, to really make a unified language, you have to unify people's thought patterns.

Sounds like it would be double plus good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com