Life In 19x19

Aidoneus wrote:Simpler or more "primitive" things and concepts almost always have shorter one or two syllable names. Wood is more "primitive" than cylinder, so one might subconsciously choose to translate "duks" as wood based on linguistic experience. Perhaps being given the actual three-dimensional objects instead of a picture has another effect of emphasizing shape--perhaps along the lines of Ed's observation, though why this might differ between east and west is not clear to me.

And that is too simplistic a view of language, a dangerous over generalization. "Wood" would not be more primitive than cylinder for a language in which "shape" is of great linguistic importance. To be fair, AFAIK the languages that use "shape" don't really use "words" in the sense that ours does; essentially all "sentences" are like a single word put together by linking stems and roots. However I can think of a language of this type which would have a primitive "stem" for "cylindrical" (for example, the PART of the utterance that referred to an "arrow" might be formed by "cylindrical", "thin", "pointed", "wooden")

Mike Novack wrote:

Aidoneus wrote:Simpler or more "primitive" things and concepts almost always have shorter one or two syllable names. Wood is more "primitive" than cylinder, so one might subconsciously choose to translate "duks" as wood based on linguistic experience. Perhaps being given the actual three-dimensional objects instead of a picture has another effect of emphasizing shape--perhaps along the lines of Ed's observation, though why this might differ between east and west is not clear to me.

And that is too simplistic a view of language, a dangerous over generalization. "Wood" would not be more primitive than cylinder for a language in which "shape" is of great linguistic importance. To be fair, AFAIK the languages that use "shape" don't really use "words" in the sense that ours does; essentially all "sentences" are like a single word put together by linking stems and roots. However I can think of a language of this type which would have a primitive "stem" for "cylindrical" (for example, the PART of the utterance that referred to an "arrow" might be formed by "cylindrical", "thin", "pointed", "wooden")

Indeed, while some languages like French divide all nouns into 2 classes (masculine vs feminine) that take agreement differently from other nouns, adjectives etc. other languages, like some of the Bantu languages of Africa, have 8 or more genders, often distinguished by shape. So, you use a slightly different form of "red" for a red stick vs a red ball.

Mike Novack wrote:

Aidoneus wrote:Simpler or more "primitive" things and concepts almost always have shorter one or two syllable names. Wood is more "primitive" than cylinder, so one might subconsciously choose to translate "duks" as wood based on linguistic experience. Perhaps being given the actual three-dimensional objects instead of a picture has another effect of emphasizing shape--perhaps along the lines of Ed's observation, though why this might differ between east and west is not clear to me.

And that is too simplistic a view of language, a dangerous over generalization. "Wood" would not be more primitive than cylinder for a language in which "shape" is of great linguistic importance. To be fair, AFAIK the languages that use "shape" don't really use "words" in the sense that ours does; essentially all "sentences" are like a single word put together by linking stems and roots. However I can think of a language of this type which would have a primitive "stem" for "cylindrical" (for example, the PART of the utterance that referred to an "arrow" might be formed by "cylindrical", "thin", "pointed", "wooden")

Oh come on! You cannot honestly be asserting that a cylinder (three syllables in English) is a more basic (or "primitive") concept than wood (one syllable). And I said nothing about more basic shapes: flat, sharp, round, thin, fat, etc.

So Mike, are you one of those people who like to argue just for the sake of arguing? Because I don't have time or inclination to debate linguistic theory with you. Have a nice day!

Aidoneus wrote:
Oh come on! You cannot honestly be asserting that a cylinder (three syllables in English) is a more basic (or "primitive") concept than wood (one syllable). And I said nothing about more basic shapes: flat, sharp, round, thin, fat, etc.

So Mike, are you one of those people who like to argue just for the sake of arguing? Because I don't have time or inclination to debate linguistic theory with you. Have a nice day!

Sorry, but I didn't see in your original comment anything about English being the criteria. I thought you were saying that "wood" was a more basic concept than "cylinder" and how that should be expected to affect word length (in a presumably arbitrary language). Nor was I referring to "linguistic theory" although you have just given an example for the side of the argument that believes that the language we speak strongly influences our ability to conceptualize.

You, not I, was expressing "linguistic theory" (that more basic concepts could be expected to have shorter/simpler words). I was simply pointing out that there are languages in which "cylinder" would be more basic than "wood" (because I know of one which uses "shape" and "cylindrical" is one of the "shapes" --- although to be fair, our concepts of "word" and "word length wouldn't quite apply in this language).

This is all about "cultural difference", right?

Oh dear... I do so hate simplistic "Them vs. Us" categorization. Especially when it implies I was Too Long In Japan.

But no, I don't think this has improved my view of the go board in any way.

And this, Ladies and Gentleman, is why "westerners" don't get "ladder-breakers", the notion of effects from a distance is simply alien to them.

tapir wrote:And this, Ladies and Gentleman, is why "westerners" don't get "ladder-breakers", the notion of effects from a distance is simply alien to them.

Take a look at this image for a few moments and think about what you see.



This kind of image is discussed in my Chinese language textbook, in a section titled "Traditional Chinese paintings differ from oil paintings." The text points out that traditional Chinese art often makes use of blank space, which allows the viewer to infer the background. Did you think about the wind? About the speed of the horse? The surface of the ground? time of day? Whether the horse was running in a flat or mountainous region?

I wouldn't say that Westerners can't or don't infer the background when they see an image of a running horse, but it wouldn't surprise me if they spent less time imagining it than a Chinese person would. A person spends more time and energy thinking about something that they find interesting, and it is likely that they will discover more facets about that something than someone who doesn't find it as interesting. The suggestion is that attention to the background, the circumstances in which an object exists, is of greater interest to an Asian person than to a Westerner. A ladder breaker is simple, whole board thinking is not. Is is so abstruse to think that someone whose natural inclination is to pay attention to the whole picture might be better at finding more important facets of the global position during a local fight?

daal wrote:Take a look at this image for a few moments

Indeed, space is a very deep subject, in art and in design.

Just another fun tidbit about faces and backgrounds.

Researchers at Princeton have "set out to build a tool that could show people what their brains are doing in real time, and signal the moments when their minds begin to wander." Their method involves showing people images of faces superimposed on backgrounds. The people being tested are asked to press a button if the face is female. Using an MRI-like device, the testers monitor when your attention starts drifting from the face. "Whenever you start spacing out, it detects more “scene” than “face” in your brain signal, and tells the program to make the faces you are watching grow dimmer."

In other words, the researchers define attention as one's ability to focus on the mundane task of confirming the obvious while ignoring surrounding information. Western bias?

Quotes from: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ne/385284/

daal wrote:Just another fun tidbit about faces and backgrounds.

... Western bias?

Quotes from: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ne/385284/

Interesting article and interesting idea of yours.