Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan's Canada Cannabis Legalization Logitech Giveaway

We're giving away Logitech hardware to lucky 420chan users to celebrate recreational legalization on October 17!
Round 1 Giveaway Entry     Discussion Thread
Semantic Domains by Henry Dartforth - Sun, 13 May 2018 00:02:52 EST ID:tkutlT9X No.12920 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1526184172984.png -(1588822B / 1.52MB, 640x944) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1588822
So, what's a better semantic domain to use against the idea of Language Relativity than colors?

I'm thinking emotions would work. They're universal, but require thought to distinguish, unlike color recognition, which is instinctual. That said, I can't really think of any language that distinguishes emotions differently than English and Spanish, the only two languages I speak.

Penny for your thoughts, /lang/.
>>
Fanny Biffingkire - Mon, 02 Jul 2018 03:36:54 EST ID:pfV1k0Io No.12935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pastoralists have many words for shades of color. The brown, white, yellow, grey, brown range can be absolutely huge. As you probably knew, most color systems don't distinguish blue from green. Black, white, red, yellow, green-blue, brown are the most stable. Grey is common. Pink is rare. Orange is basically unknown. There are a class of colors derived from plant and animal products eg. indigo, marron, lilac. These are always young and easy borrowed.

Emotional states may be universal but only the basic ones have specific roots. The usual rendition for higher emotional states is periphrasis with reference to "heart", "mind", "body", "eye". They don't say happy, they say "heart-pleased", they don't say snarky/irreverent, they say "hard-eyed", they don't say sad/depressed, they say "broken-hearted", they don't say brave but "heart-y". Furthermore, these expressions don't always translate to the same thing. "Heartlessness" means cruelty as in English but licentiousness in another language (and also conceivably cowardly).

This way of expressing feelings is productive in English when we don't use core emotions, verbal roots or borrowed words.

Semantic range of most expression is relative. The question is one o f degree. If there is no need for something to be distinguished, it doesn't get distinguished. Thus, lots of languages don't create words for digits greater than 5. 10, 20 and 100 numerals derive from roots meaning greatness or totality. This isn't merely limited to intangibles, distinguishing between lips-mouth, hand-arm, hand-leg is globally more absent than it is present.

I'm not sure why you feel motivated to challenge this. It's just more parsimonious to be relativistic.
>>
Charles Packlefut - Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:23:26 EST ID:7+szUJXv No.12943 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>12935
I'm no linguist but I was wandering around on Wikipedia back then and I felt a vulnerability in this line of study. I'm just some layman, I can't really look into this concept properly, so I decided to consult this board and hopefully catch the attention of someone who could maybe make something of this idea, or at least put my mind at ease. Thank you for that, by the way.

I feel that perhaps the geopgraphic locations where languages develop, and the circumstances in which they develop, affect the way certain languages categorize objects, and that no situation is ideal for preparing a language to be perfectly comprehensive when describing classes of things such as plants and animals. Not everything lives everywhere, do people who live far away from anything venomous, like the Inuit, have words for poison?

Because of this like, natural gap in our knowledge, people applied the words they have to new concepts and we end up with shit like the family groups of Wittgenstein. I wonder how much scientific progress has been held back by our inability to properly handle things that don't quite fit in our categorizing, things like Echidnas and suicide trees/suicide plants.

I apologize, I'm in way over my head with these idle thoughts. But I can't really be satisfied with parsimony in science. I'm kinda hoping that I can loop someone sho knows what the fuck they are doing into pursuing these ideas further, just in case I'm onto something here and there's insight to be discovered down this road.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.