Ask HN: Why aren't there more missing words?
I've always found it odd that there aren't more times I am literally lacking for words. How is it possible that words are so expressive of thought? It is so much so that it must be thought is an expression of words. But that is not commonly taught? Or is it wrong?
5 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 22.4 ms ] threadI'm as sure as I can be that I don't think in words at all. Stuff happens down in the engine room, and I get feelings, and then they get translated into language.
Even when we're convinced that another person really means what they're saying, the thought isn't really transmitted, only the intention to transmit it. Parents tell their children so many things, their hearts breaking, practically begging their children to really understand what they're saying, and it rarely if ever really gets through. We just keep making the same mistakes because we're not able to transmit the feeling you get from bitter experience. I think everything would be totally different if we could.
E.g., in Indonesian there are two forms of “we”: “kita”, that includes the person being spoken to, and “kami”, that excludes the person being spoken to. In my native language, Danish, there is only one form (“vi”) but I have never felt that I need more words to express “we”. Yet, when I see the Indonesian feature it seems immediately useful and I start wondering why that possibility of expression has never evolved in the Danish (or English) language.
You would probably want to read up on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis — e.g., http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/sapir.cfm