• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Language: How much do you really need to say to put a sentence together?

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,771
Reaction score
15,242
Location
Massachusetts
An article from last year, but one I hadn't seen until today. I write SF. Sometimes, my plots involve intelligent aliens. I've always sidestepped the issue of how my human characters first learned to communicate with them -- it "just works" -- and I usually posit some technology that hugely augments learning a new language and/or that injects "native-speakership" knowledge of languages where the translations are known. This article points out reasons why that initial translation is likely to be a slow slog, even with future tech.

The World’s Most Efficient Languages

The Atlantic said:
Just as fish presumably don’t know they’re wet, many English speakers don’t know that the way their language works is just one of endless ways it could have come out. It’s easy to think that what one’s native language puts words to, and how, reflects the fundamentals of reality.

But languages are strikingly different in the level of detail they require a speaker to provide in order to put a sentence together. In English, for example, here’s a simple sentence that comes to my mind for rather specific reasons related to having small children: “The father said ‘Come here!’” This statement specifies that there is a father, that he conducted the action of speaking in the past, and that he indicated the child should approach him at the location “here.” What else would a language need to do?

Well, for a German speaker, more. In “Der Vater sagte ‘Komm her!’”, although it just seems like a variation on the English sentence, more is happening. “Der,” the word for “the,” is a choice among other possibilities: It’s the one used for masculine nouns only. If the sentence were about a mother, it would have to use the feminine die, or if about a girl, the neuter das (for reasons unnecessary to broach here!). The word for “said,” sagte, is marked with a suffix for the third-person singular; if it were “you said,” then it would be sagtest—in English, those forms don’t vary in the past tense. Then, her for “here” means “to here”: In German one must become what feels to an English speaker rather Shakespearean and say “hither” when that’s what is meant. “Here” in the sense of just sitting “here” is a different word, hier.

This German sentence, then, requires you to pay more attention to the genders of people and things, to whether it’s me, you, her, him, us, y’all, or them driving the action. It also requires specifying not just where someone is but whether that person is moving closer or farther away. German is, overall, busier than English, and yet Germans feel their way of putting things is as normal as English speakers feel their way is.

Other languages occupy still other places on the linguistic axis of “busyness,” from prolix to laconic, and it’s surprising what a language can do without. In Mandarin Chinese, a way of saying “The father said ‘Come here!’” is “Fùqīn shuō ‘Guò lái zhè lǐ!’” Just as in English, there is no marker for the father’s gender, nor does the form of the word shuō for “said” indicate whether the speaker is me, you, or him. The word for “here,” zhè lǐ, can mean either “right here” or “to here,” just like in English. But Mandarin is even more telegraphic. There is no definite article like “the.” The word for “said” lacks not only a suffix for person, but is also not marked for tense; it just means “say.” It is assumed that context will indicate that this event happened in the past. Much of learning Mandarin involves getting a sense of how much one can not say in an acceptable sentence.

...

For instance, how difficult it must be for an English speaker to learn an expressive language like Atsugewi, or for an Atsugewi speaker to learn a terser, blunter language like English?

Even if languages’ differences in busyness can’t be taken as windows on psychological alertness, the differences remain awesome. In a Native American language of California called Atsugewi (now extinct), if a tree was burned and we found the ashes in a creek afterward, we would have said that soot w’oqhputíc’ta into the creek. W’oqhputíc’ta is a conglomeration of bits that mean “it moved like dirt, in a falling fashion, into liquid, and for real.” In English, we would just say “flowed.”
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
Reminds me of this article I saw yesterday about sign language interpreters:

As New York City Mayor Bloomberg gave numerous televised addresses about the preparations the city was making for Hurricane Sandy, and then the storm’s aftermath, he was joined at the podium by a sign language interpreter, who immediately became a twitter darling. People watching the addresses tweeted that she was "amazing," "mesmerizing," "hypnotizing," and "AWESOME."

Soon, her name was uncovered—Lydia Callis—and animated .gifs of her signing were posted. A couple of hours later,
a tumblr was born.New York magazine called her "Hurricane Sandy's breakout star."Callis was great, but not because she was so lively and animated.

She was great because she was performing a seriously difficult mental task—simultaneously listening and translating on the spot—in a high-pressure, high-stakes situation. Sure, she was expressive, but that's because she was speaking a visual language. Signers are animated not because they are bubbly and energetic, but because sign language uses face and body movements as part of its grammar.

The article gives several examples (with pictures) that are really informative and interesting.

 

jjdebenedictis

is watching you via her avatar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,063
Reaction score
1,643
Reminds me of a passage from Broken Angels, by Richard K Morgan, where a human scholar takes a crack at translating some carvings for her companion. The carvings were made by an alien race that flew, and I thought this passage did a good job of showing how weird it potentially could be to translate the words of a species that was not only alien but had completely different way of moving around than we do.

She reached out to run her fingers along the form of one of the glyphs. "It's a schooling screed. Sort of a cross between a poem and a set of safety instructions for fledglings. Parts of it are equations, probably for lift and drag. It's sort of a graffito as well. It says--" She stopped, shook her head again. "--there's no way to say what it says. But it, ah, it promises. Well, enlightenment, a sense of eternity, from dreaming the use of your wings before you can actually fly. And take a good shit before you go up in a populated area."

"You're winding me up. It doesn't say that."

"It does. All tied to the same equation sequence, too." She turned away. "They were good at integrating things. Not much compartmentalization in the Martian psyche, from what we can tell."
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Reminds me of this article I saw yesterday about sign language interpreters:



The article gives several examples (with pictures) that are really informative and interesting.


I always find it kind of amusing when people get all hyped up over expressive signers. It's just sign -- sign involves hand shape, position, movement and expression.

Remember the fake sign interpreter at Nelson Mandela's funeral? I remember some news outlet interviewing Marlee Matlin about the whole kerfuffle, and the reporter asked if she had any idea he wasn't signing, even though he'd have been signing in a language she doesn't know. She laughed and said she knew he was a fake instantly -- his face was blank. He also wasn't moving his hands outside a very constrained area, but you can't sign without expression. Also why Deaf actors don't have botox. :)

Considering the thread, just because, ASL is not signed English. It's a language onto itself, with its own syntax, grammar, rules, etc. It's also more compact than English. You use specific time instead of tenses, for instance.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,128
Reaction score
10,900
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
This isn't really the same thing as differences in efficiency re syntax and grammar, but I read something a while back: a few languages, such as Pirahã, don't appear to have any specific words for numbers, or words for colors aside from light and dark. When they refer to red, they don't have a noun for red, but rather a descriptive phrase, such as "like blood." For numbers, they seem to differentiate between one, two, and more than two.

As a speaker of English (and as one who has learned a smidgen of Spanish), I always thought that having specific nouns for numbers and colors was just one of those things that all human languages had to have, and that numbers and colors are a thing that every human think of in the same way, as something so important, useful, and integral that they need specific words.

Not so, apparently.

I also vaguely remember reading somewhere that many colors that we English speakers think of as distinct things these days didn't always have special words (and I'm not talking about the huge range of nuanced "designer" colors we differentiate now, but the basic ROYGBIV colors). Orange, for instance, was once regarded as a shade of red, yellowish red, or something like that.

In fact, it wasn't until 1704 that Indigo and Orange were added to the rainbow. Prior to that, it was "RYGBV." The English speakers' rainbow had only five colors.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/physics/history-colour-science

If one doesn't have a word for something, it's harder to think of it as real. But presumably, a culture's collective sense of reality can also drive what words (and grammatical conventions) they coin and how they evolve. Which comes first? I'm guessing the latter, and cultures are most likely to have words for things that are relevant to them, but could chance play a role too? And can having a word for something to begin with make it feel more relevant or important?
 
Last edited:

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
This isn't really the same thing as differences in efficiency re syntax and grammar, but I read something a while back: a few languages, such as Pirahã, don't appear to have any specific words for numbers, or words for colors aside from light and dark. When they refer to red, they don't have a noun for red, but rather a descriptive phrase, such as "like blood." For numbers, they seem to differentiate between one, two, and more than two.
This is off-topic, so apologies, but the Piraha are also really interesting (imo) because they have no word for "god" or "gods" and religious beliefs (the way most people understand them) are a somewhat laughable concept to them.

The linguist who first worked to decipher their language, Daniel Everett, was a Christian missionary when he started working with them (he translated gospel books from the Bible into their language in an attempt to convert them) and became an atheist due to their influence. It's a fascinating story.

Two vids with Everett discussing his time with the Piraha and learning their culture and language:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=get272FyNto