Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 2 Issue 167
AIList Digest Sunday, 2 Dec 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 167
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - Special Net.AI Issues for Arpanet Readers,
Linguistics - Language Deficiencies & Translation Difficulties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun 2 Dec 84 16:04:11-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Special Net.AI Issues for Arpanet Readers
Laurence Leff of SMU has sent me the Usenet Net.AI record for
the period since my Usenet gateway has been down. (I.e., since
October 23.) I will pass the Usenet messages along to Arpanet
readers in three special issues. This first one includes a
discussion of linguistics and translation difficulties. The
next issue will include related material about the influence
of language on thought. The third will be a miscellany issue
containing nonlinguistic material.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: 1:18 pm Oct 23, 1984
From: colonel@gloria
Subject: natural language deficiencies?
> This struck a chord. I remember a PBS TV show about the Australian
> aborigines and the difficulties studying them. There is apparently no
> way to phrase "what if" types of questions. The anthropologists had to
> tell them a thing was so, get their response, and then tell them it was
> not so.
>
> This would seem to me to be a serious "expressive deficit". Any
> aborigines on the net care to verify this?
A general semanticist named Harrington whose first name
I have forgotten said that he knew an Indian who was
fluent in his tribal language and also in ours. Harring-
ton asked the Indian if there were such words (meanings)
as "could" and "should" in his Indian language. The
Indian was quiet for a while, then shook his head. "No,"
he said. "Things just are."
Barry Stevens, _Don't Push the River_ (1970)
Expressive deficiency? Or a more accurate modeling of reality?
See also the "Counterfactuals" dialogue in Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher,
Bach._
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
------------------------------
Date: 10:10 am Oct 25, 1984
From: dan@aplvax
Subject: Tenses in Hopi
It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a
present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs.
Surely this is a language deficiency.
------------------------------
Date: 2:27 pm Oct 26, 1984
From: mmt@dciem
Subject: Tenses in Hopi
It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language [...]
If I remember correctly, Whorf pointed out that the Hopi don't really
have verbs. Rather, they differentiate between events that last longer
than a cloud (nouns) and shorter events (verbs). Presumably they also
distinguish between events you know about (past+present[which is now past
because you are talking about it]) and events you don't know about
(counterfactuals and/or future). Does anyone know more directly about
this?
The nature of the Hopi verb/noun tense/factual distinction is interesting
because Whorf used the non-distinction between noun and verb to
argue that the Hopi probably see the world in a different way.
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
------------------------------
Date: 1:06 pm Oct 27, 1984
From: steven@mcvax
Subject: Language Deficiencies
I find this talk of 'deficiencies' a little disturbing.
A deficiency is in the ear of the listener, surely. If a language doesn't
have a particular feature, then that is only because the speakers of that
language don't need it. If they perceived a need for it, something would
develop.
As an example, 'standard' English doesn't distinguish between 'you' singular
and plural, while many languages do. Is this a deficiency of English? Most
English speakers would probably say not because they get along fine as it is.
However certain dialects of English apparently found it a deficiency, because
they went and invented a plural version (y'all in USA, youse in England).
A similar example is the difficulty in English of saying something in a
gender-neutral way (Chinese has a single word for 'he or she' for instance).
Many English speakers find this a deficiency, and so are developing ways to
express these things.
------------------------------
Date: 7:32 am Oct 28, 1984
From: malcolm@west44
Subject: "Youse"
Since when has the word "youse" been used in England (or even Great Britain)?
------------------------------
Date: 7:40 am Oct 28, 1984
From: dick@tjalk
Subject: Language Deficiencies
>
> From: dan@aplvax.UUCP (Daniel M. Sunday)
>
> It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language [...]
It is well-known that the English language only has a genderless
substantive, there are no masculine or feminine forms for their
substantives. Surely this is a language deficiency.
It is well-known that the English language only has a sizeless
substantive, there is no diminuitive form for their substantives.
Surely this is a language deficiency.
There is no (reasonable) way to render Dutch: leraresje (little female teacher)
into English.
Dick Grune
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam
and my name isn't Richard.
------------------------------
Date: 7:40 am Oct 28, 1984
From: steven@mcvax
Subject: Translation of Dutch
> There is no (reasonable) way to render Dutch: leraresje (little female
> teacher) into English.
There is no way, reasonable or not, to render Dutch 'gezellig' into English.
This is also SURELY a language deficiency.
(Since there's no way to render the word into English, I'm afraid I can't
explain to non-Dutch speakers what it means, except to say that it's an
adjective describing social situations, and is desirable.)
((For Dutch readers: I find the same problems with 'eng', though it's not so
widely discussed as gezellig. But perhaps discussion on that should be
restricted to nlnet distribution.))
------------------------------
Date: 6:32 pm Oct 29, 1984
From: rob@ptsfa
Subject: Language Deficiencies
> It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a
> present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs.
> Surely this is a language deficiency.
Similarly Indonesian does not have tenses either (nor aspect or person
or number).
However, the meanings that tenses, etc. express in English et al. get expressed
with separate words in Indonesian. In fact English doesn't even have a real
future tense, e.g. no prefix/suffix added to verb root to denote future;
English uses a separate word 'will' to denote futurity, as well as phrases
like 'be going to'.
Indonesian has a whole battery of adverbs to take the place of verb tense.
The lack of a syntactic feature does not necessarily mean a communicative
deficiency. And in any case it is not clear that if a language cannot
communicate some certain meaning it is deficient - maybe the native speakers
of that language have no need to express that meaning.
Do Congolese Pigmies need to have a word for snow? Actually that's a slightly
different issue than tense, because 'snow' is an object whereas tense is
has a more abstract significance.
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!pbauae!rob
------------------------------
Date: 7:24 pm Oct 29, 1984
From: lwall@sdcrdcf
Subject: Language Deficiencies
In article <6115@mcvax.UUCP> steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) writes:
>I find this talk of 'deficiencies' a little disturbing.
>
>A deficiency is in the ear of the listener, surely. If a language doesn't
>have a particular feature, then that is only because the speakers of that
>language don't need it. If they perceived a need for it, something would
>develop.
I find this talk of deficiencies a little disturbing too, but for different
reasons. Almost all purported "deficiencies" indicate not that a language
cannot communicate a particular idea, but that the purported linguist has
not studied the language well enough. Languages are not differentiated on
the basis of what is possible or impossible to say, but on the basis of what
is easier or harder to say. That is not to say that a given language is
easier or harder than another--languages on the whole are of approximately
equal complexity, but the complexities show up in different places in
different languages. This is known as the waterbed theory of linguistics--
you push it down one place and it pops up somewhere else.
>As an example, 'standard' English doesn't distinguish between 'you' singular
>and plural, while many languages do. Is this a deficiency of English? Most
>English speakers would probably say not because they get along fine as it is.
>However certain dialects of English apparently found it a deficiency, because
>they went and invented a plural version (y'all in USA, youse in England).
Here in California, it's "you guys". And no, they don't all have to be male.
They don't any of them have to be male.
Of course, "standard" English has "all of you", "you folks", "you ladies",
etc., and a bunch of vocative phrases to indicate plurality. "Gentlemen,
start your engines!"
>A similar example is the difficulty in English of saying something in a
>gender-neutral way (Chinese has a single word for 'he or she' for instance).
>Many English speakers find this a deficiency, and so are developing ways to
>express these things.
One does have a certain amount of difficulty, doesn't one? But just because
an English speaker runs up against this problem, it doesn't mean they have to
reinvent the wheel, do they? English already has both a formal and an
informal way to express the idea. One doesn't have to misunderstood if they
don't want to. Of course, if one mixes up the formal with the informal, they
very well might be misunderstood.
(For you clunches out there, the previous paragraph is self-referential.)
Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
------------------------------
Date: 4:55 pm Oct 30, 1984
From: mmt@dciem
Subject: Translation of Dutch
> There is no way, reasonable or not, to render Dutch 'gezellig' into English.
> This is also SURELY a language deficiency.
(Since there's no way to render the word into English, I'm afraid I can't
explain to non-Dutch speakers what it means, except to say that it's an
adjective describing social situations, and is desirable.)
Why is there *no* way? Do you mean to imply that English-speakers cannot
experience this social situation, or just that it would take a complex
phrase or paragraph to get the idea across. If the former, then there
must be more difference between the Dutch culture and all English-speaking
ones than I have observed. If the latter, then why not try and see
where you get. I was under the impression that "gezellig" was close
to cosy, comfortable, unconstrained and home-like. Is this anything like?
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
------------------------------
Date: 7:47 am Oct 31, 1984
From: marcus@pyuxt
Subject: Translation of Dutch
Does gezellig mean the same as the german word "gemutlich"? ('Skuse the
spelling, please, but I'm not a German speaker, or even a speaker of
German).
marcus hand
Incidentally, I think its usually a deficiency in the speaker or writer
rather than the language....
------------------------------
Date: 7:33 pm Nov 2, 1984
From: lambert@mcvax
Subject: Language Deficiencies
[warn your system administrator if this line is missing]
> I think that there are two issues mixed up at the moment, being
> 1. Some languages have a single word-construction for an idea
> that needs several words in some other language.
> 2. Some languages *CAN NOT* be used to express certain ideas.
The distinction between these two categories is not an absolute one. Steven
Pemberton mentioned already the Dutch word "gezelligheid". No doubt it is
possible to explain the meaning of the word "gezellig" and its derivatives in
English. To do so, however, to a reasonable degree of precision (let alone
to a degree of precision that would suffice for non-native speakers to rely
on their understanding and utter these words when and only when appropriate)
would require a minor essay. Now these words are not at all infrequently
used in Dutch. My dictionary lists as translations for "gezellig":
"sociable", "cosy", "snug" and "social". A "gezellig avondje" is rendered as
a "social evening". In the direction English -> Dutch this is always
reasonable. But telling the host that the evening was "gezellig" would be
considered a compliment, whereas stating that it was social sounds like a
superfluous statement of fact. Translating "gezellig" as "cosy" is usually
not only wrong, but also ridiculous. When I try to express myself in English
where I would have used "gezellig" in Dutch, I usually substitute "nice".
However, "nice" does not really convey the meaning of what I am trying to
say. I experience this as a language deficiency.
Another example is the Dutch phrase "voor de hand liggen". There is no
phrase in English with the same meaning. In some cases, "to be obvious" is
acceptable, in some other cases one can use "to come to mind", but in many
cases both are plainly wrong, and in those cases there is no *reasonable* way
that I know of to express the concept in English.
> On the other hand, the Aborigines have no construction for 'what if',
> which is much more serious. This really is a language deficiency,
> since it will take *lots* of trouble to communicate this idea.
Having no construction for a concept is not a property of a race or ethnic
group, but of a language. There are many Australic languages. Is the lack
of expressibility of "what if" common to all these, mutually largely
disparate, languages? That would be a very interesting fact to find.
(However, it appears that none of these languages can express the concept
"supply-side economics" :-) Seriously, I don't know any of the Australic
languages, but I am not at all convinced that natural languages do exist in
which it is hard to express the fact that something has the status of a
hypothesis, even though the language may lack a word for the concept
"hypothesis". This claim about the languages spoken by the Aborigines seems
to me just one more unfounded popular belief similar to so many introduced by
travellers to uncharted areas while recounting their curious discoveries. If
it is true, however, for some language, then this would be a good test case
for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. For the implication would be that the native
speakers could not entertain hypothetical thoughts, and so would not take
provisions for contingencies.
To conclude, I want to point out two deficiencies common to all languages I
know. The first is well known: what should you reply to the question "Do you
still persist in your lies?", when you believe you are speaking the truth?
There is no way of stating that the question implies a falsehood other then
by directly contradicting the falsehood. On paper, "Question not applicable"
may do, but not in a conversation. The other deficiency has to do with "why"
questions. Children tend to pass through a period of asking questions like:
"Why are bananas yellow?" "Why does water not burn?" "Why is ice cold?"
etc., ad nauseam. In some cases there is no "why"; the concept does not
apply. For example, it is not reasonable to ask "Why is it Wednesday
today?", or "Why is red a colour?". The deficiency is that there is no
accepted way of stating about a proposition that the concept "why" does not
apply.
Lambert Meertens
...!{seismo,philabs,decvax}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
"If I were you, I should wish I were me."
------------------------------
Date: 7:34 pm Nov 2, 1984
From: steven@mcvax
Subject: "Youse"
In article <382@west44.UUCP> malcolm@west44.UUCP (Malcolm Shute.) asks:
> Since when has the word "youse" been used in England (or even Great Britain)?
Well, the earliest date I can't give you. However, it was recorded in
Norfolk, for instance, in 1905. As for Great Britain, I can find references to
1880, and possibly earlier, in Northern Ireland. However, since it is also
recorded in Australia and the USA, it probably derives from much earlier.
------------------------------
Date: 2:43 am Nov 4, 1984
From: biep@klipper
Subject: Translation of Dutch
In article <1175@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>I was under the impression that "gezellig" was close
>to cosy, comfortable, unconstrained and home-like. Is this anything like?
I wouldn't say it is "close to" the words you mentioned.
It often is, but it isn't that. E.g. it can suddenly be
"gezellig" when one of two people on an inhabitated is-
land, suddenly reveals a bar of chocolate and shares it
with his companion. They may be almost starving, but
they eat it with little bits, and talk about the taste,
and where, in which shop ("You remember, the old man
who used to buy licorice over there?"), one can buy
the best, etc.
My English isn't that good, but the whole situation
doesn't sound like "cosy", or "home-like", or such. The
Dutch word "gezellig" is derived from the same stem as
"gezelschap", which means both "the group around you"
and "the mutual affection within the group". However,
it has got a special meaning too because of the fact
that the word is often used with respect to going and
drinking coffee together at eleven o'clock in the mor-
ning. (The word "coffee" itself is highly associated
with "gezellig" too: I don't drink coffee, but nobody
would invite me "Come, and drink chocolate milk with
us!", however that is what I actually do. The word
"coffee" *has* to be mentioned to commumicate the
idea. The Dutch expression for "Our house stands always
open for you" is "The coffee is always ready for you".)
Biep.
{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am
prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it.
--Voltaire
------------------------------
Date: 5:10 pm Nov 4, 1984
From: ir44@sdcc6
Subject: Language Deficiencies
>
> > I think that there are two issues mixed up at the moment, being
> > 1. Some languages have a single word-construction for an idea
> > that needs several words in some other language.
> > 2. Some languages *CAN NOT* be used to express certain ideas.
>
> The distinction between these two categories is not an absolute one.
There are further problems in the comparison of languages and
their semantic capabilities that become evident in this series
of articles on "deficiencies."
1. The discussion of Dutch "gezellig" illustrates the
difficulty of defining a word (more for some words than
others) in its OWN language, let alone translating it, i.e.,
finding a single or compact phrase that conveys its meaning
to speakers of another language. The problems of definition
and translation appear to be similar and always approximate.
One test (of distribution) is whether a proposed synonym or
defining phrase or circumlocution can be substituted for the
original word over the whole range of environments in which
that word can occur. Under this test there are few true
synonyms within a language let alone single word translations
in the target language. In translation the test is doubly
approximate as the environment in which a term occurs are
themselves approximate translations, themselves environed by
the word being tested. I have spoken to Bible translators, now
so widespread in the world, about how they translate such
notions as "God" or "hell." They do their best, ignore the
incommensurabilities, and rely on God or "God" to get his
point across.
2. The notion of "word" in my inexpert opinion is one of the
most loosely defined in linguistics. Sometimes it is taken
as a unit that can occur by itself (unlike an affix which,
while it can occur independently, with many different roots,
is a bound morpheme that would not occur by itself unless
it has been liberated, like "isms and ologies.") But much of
what we take as words in English are, I think, only separated
as orthographic conventions, not occuring separately as
utterances in speech-- compare "am" with "-ing". The sense
of "wordness" may be more semantic than syntactic or perhaps
more a matter of cognitive chunking. The question of what
makes a good dictionary entry may have its counterpart in the
storage of vocabulary- "word" being in some way the best
retrieval unit.
Ted Schwartz Anthro/UCSD
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
