Klarinet Archive - Posting 000427.txt from 2002/11

From: Stan T <rthomson@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Vocabulary vs. thought
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:54:16 -0500

At 12:12 PM 11/11/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>Stan T wrote:
> >
Mark;
I concur with the thrust of your argument that people apply
language to the world they observe, but I think the relationship between
words and concepts influence each other. As linguist David Crystal remarks,
every language finds the terms it needs to describe the world around them,
and as you say, if more than two words for different shades of red were
necessary, no doubt the words would be found. However, I don't think one
can deny that because language 'forms' our thought, it influences our
method of mental taxonomy, which is why I think the metaphors we use to try
and describe hard-to-pin-down concepts are so revealing. Just to briefly
steer this toward the original topic, I don't think I've used the word
'dark' twice in 5 years, either to a student or to describe anyone's sound.
I have used 'bright', however, and my main objection was the refusal of
some to allow that certain terms were useful in characterizing perceived
changes in tone.

Regards,
Stan T.

>My own contention, Stan, is not that "people carve up the world
>according to their language" but that they "carve up their language
>according to their world."
> In that light, that various peoples who have two words for "red" makes
>perception of a multitude of shades a non-issue; of course they can.
>Rather, they perhaps find (as a culture) that only two words for "red"
>are commonly necessary for most useful purposes when talking about that
>perception. (Measurement measures measuring means.)
>
>--
>Mark Gresham, composer
>mgresham@-----.com/
>Lux Nova Press http://www.luxnova.com/
>LNP Retail Webstore http://www.luxnova.com/lnpwebstore/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------