What do you think?
Rate this book
毓亘乇 賲賳馗丕乇 丕賱賱睾丞: 賱賲 賷亘丿賵 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲禺鬲賱賮賸丕 亘賱睾丕鬲 兀禺乇賶責
賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵賲丕夭丕賱鬲貙 賱睾夭丕 睾丕賲囟丕貙 賮賴賱 賴賷 賲賳 氐賳毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳責 賵賲丕 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賱睾丞 亘丕賱胤亘賷毓丞: 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵睾賷乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞責 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴匕丕貙 賷亘丨孬 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賱睾賵賷丕鬲 睾賵賷 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 毓賳 丕賱氐賱丞 丕賱禺賮賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賲賳 噩賴丞 鬲氐賵乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞貙 賵丕賱賱睾丞 賲賳 噩賴丞 賰賵賳賴丕 賲賱賰丞 乇賲夭賷丞 賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱毓丕賱賲.
鬲賱賯賷 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱鬲爻毓丞 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 兀賵噩賴 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賱賱賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 賳賮爻賴丕: 賴賱 鬲丐孬乇 賱睾丞 賲丕 賮賷 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賳丕胤賯 亘賴丕 賱賱毓丕賱賲責 丨丕賵賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 廿噩丕亘丞 賲賳 賲賵丕乇丿 賲鬲毓丿丿丞貙 賮亘丿兀 亘丕爻鬲卮賮丕賮 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丨賵賱 兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱卮丕毓乇 丕賱賲賱丨賲賷 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻貙 賵丕賱賯氐賵乇 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱 丕賱匕賷 鬲卮賷乇 廿賱賶 賱睾鬲賴貙 賮賷 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳. 賵毓乇噩 亘毓丿賴丕 毓賱賶 賳馗賲 丕賱噩賴丕鬲 丕賱睾乇賷亘 丕賱匕賷 鬲賮乇囟賴 賱睾丕鬲 卮毓賵亘 兀爻鬲乇丕賱賷丕 丕賱兀氐賱賷賷賳貙 賰賲丕 鬲胤乇賯 廿賱賶 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賱賵賳賷 丕賱賲亘賴賲 毓賳丿 丕賱賷丕亘丕賳賷賷賳 賱賱賵賳賷賳 丕賱兀禺囟乇 賵丕賱兀夭乇賯貙 賵毓乇囟 丕賱鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕丕賱睾乇賷亘 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賮賷 鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賵賮賯 噩賳爻賴丕貙 賵丕賱氐毓賵亘丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷毓丕賳賷 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賳丕胤賯賵賳 亘賱睾丕鬲 兀禺乇賶 賱賮賴賲 丕賱賲睾夭賶 賲賳 賵乇丕亍 匕賱賰 丕賱鬲賯爻賷賲.
賷亘丿賵 兀賳賴貙 賵毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丕鬲爻丕毓 亘爻丕胤 丕賱亘丨孬 賵鬲賳賵毓 賲卮丕乇亘賴貙 賮廿賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賷亘賯賶 賲賮鬲賵丨丕 毓賱賶 賰賱 丕賱廿噩丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱丞貙 賮賴賱 賷賳馗乇 丕賱賳丕胤賯 亘賱睾丞 賲丕 廿賱賶 卮賷亍 賲丨丿丿 賳馗乇丞 鬲禺鬲賱賮 毓賳 賳馗乇丞 賳丕胤賯 亘賱睾丞 兀禺乇賶 廿賱賶 丕賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩毓賱 賲賳賴 賲賵囟賵毓 賳馗乇 賲睾丕賷乇責 賱丕 兀丨丿貙 毓賱賶 賵噩賴 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞貙 賷毓賱賲.
鬲賱賯賷 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱鬲爻毓丞 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 兀賵噩賴 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賱賱賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 賳賮爻賴丕: 賴賱 鬲丐孬乇 賱睾丞 賲丕 賮賷 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賳丕胤賯 亘賴丕 賱賱毓丕賱賲責 丨丕賵賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 廿噩丕亘丞 賲賳 賲賵丕乇丿 賲鬲毓丿丿丞貙 賮亘丿兀 亘丕爻鬲卮賮丕賮 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丨賵賱 兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱卮丕毓乇 丕賱賲賱丨賲賷 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻貙 賵丕賱賯氐賵乇 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱 丕賱匕賷 鬲卮賷乇 廿賱賶 賱睾鬲賴貙 賮賷 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳. 賵毓乇噩 亘毓丿賴丕 毓賱賶 賳馗賲 丕賱噩賴丕鬲 丕賱睾乇賷亘 丕賱匕賷 鬲賮乇囟賴 賱睾丕鬲 卮毓賵亘 兀爻鬲乇丕賱賷丕 丕賱兀氐賱賷賷賳貙 賰賲丕 鬲胤乇賯 廿賱賶 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賱賵賳賷 丕賱賲亘賴賲 毓賳丿 丕賱賷丕亘丕賳賷賷賳 賱賱賵賳賷賳 丕賱兀禺囟乇 賵丕賱兀夭乇賯貙 賵毓乇囟 丕賱鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕丕賱睾乇賷亘 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賮賷 鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賵賮賯 噩賳爻賴丕貙 賵丕賱氐毓賵亘丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷毓丕賳賷 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賳丕胤賯賵賳 亘賱睾丕鬲 兀禺乇賶 賱賮賴賲 丕賱賲睾夭賶 賲賳 賵乇丕亍 匕賱賰 丕賱鬲賯爻賷賲.
賷亘丿賵 兀賳賴貙 賵毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丕鬲爻丕毓 亘爻丕胤 丕賱亘丨孬 賵鬲賳賵毓 賲卮丕乇亘賴貙 賮廿賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賷亘賯賶 賲賮鬲賵丨丕 毓賱賶 賰賱 丕賱廿噩丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱丞貙 賮賴賱 賷賳馗乇 丕賱賳丕胤賯 亘賱睾丞 賲丕 廿賱賶 卮賷亍 賲丨丿丿 賳馗乇丞 鬲禺鬲賱賮 毓賳 賳馗乇丞 賳丕胤賯 亘賱睾丞 兀禺乇賶 廿賱賶 丕賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩毓賱 賲賳賴 賲賵囟賵毓 賳馗乇 賲睾丕賷乇責 賱丕 兀丨丿貙 毓賱賶 賵噩賴 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞貙 賷毓賱賲.
321 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
1,073 people are currently reading
24.2k people want to read
About the author
Guy Deutscher
5听books260听followersGuy Deutscher is the author of Through the Language Glass and The Unfolding of Language. Formerly a Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge and of the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Languages in the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, he is an honorary Research Fellow at the School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures in the University of Manchester.
There is more than one author with this name
For the physics professor, please see: Guy Deutscher.
There is more than one author with this name
For the physics professor, please see: Guy Deutscher.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 880 reviews
October 21, 2021
Technological Kickback
Language is a form of technology, perhaps the source-technology from which all others are generated (even if academic linguists have difficulty in seeing it as such).* Language may not look like look a technology because it鈥檚 largely invisible. It takes time and effort to master but then it鈥檚 taken for granted so that it is no longer noticed. But like any technology, it does things for people which couldn鈥檛 be done without it. And like all technologies, language does things to the people who use it which they never anticipated. In both senses - as tool and as environment - language is the most powerful technology ever created.
Or more accurately, the most powerful family of technologies because while all languages allow the same things to be achieved, they don鈥檛 do that in the same way. Some languages, like Ancient Greek, are extremely precise and complicated in their components (words, or as Deutscher calls them: labels) and how these work together (grammar) to form very precise expressions. Others, like Hebrew, are noticeably lacking in many of these features (like extensive vocabularies and tenses). Yet both can be used, more or less efficiently, to express the same ideas. Concepts seem constant while the labels change. Or do they?
The mechanism of the language machine works on us as well as through us. Eons before the term Artificial Intelligence was coined, language itself took on a life of its own and started influencing the lives of human beings in ways of which we are entirely unaware. Its categories and its logics come to be perceived as natural, as an expression of the way the world really is. Things and labels became conjoined. Linguistic truth becomes confused with reality. Reasonableness, another linguistic trait, becomes a universal standard of human behaviour. Language runs the show. Deutscher calls it culture, which is shorthand for language at work.
Of course it isn鈥檛 possible to even discuss the hegemony of language outside of language. So the deck is stacked from the start. But it turns out that there鈥檚 a crack in the Great Linguistic Wall. Each language has some distinctively unique effects on the human beings who use it. Differences can be compared in order to 鈥榦ut鈥� the concealed structures that each language imposes. These differences typically hide in plain sight. As Deutscher says, 鈥渋t turns out that the most significant connections between language, culture, and thought are to be found where they are least expected, in those places where healthy common sense would suggest that all cultures and all languages should be exactly the same.鈥�
Culture likes to masquerade as human nature. Most religions (and more generally, ideologies), for example, claim that their precepts simply reflect the authentic 鈥榖eing鈥� of Homo sapiens and the society that species has created. The discovery that other cultures had different ideas about what constitutes true humanity, typically provokes a sort of fundamentalist response of cultural superiority. And naturally this response is expressed in words, which often contain within themselves the very superiority being argued. What the fundamentalists themselves don鈥檛 understand is that they are being used by the language they think they control.
This is an important book, and not just because it is an interesting and entertaining exposition of recent language-research. More importantly, it lifts the veil of language just enough to see its creative mechanism at work. No language provides a neutral, objective description of the world. All languages come with historical (and ideological) baggage which directs attention and prejudices conversation as much as it allows communication and cooperation. It probably takes as much effort to recognise this as it does to learn a language in the first place. The fact is that 鈥渓anguage is a cultural convention that doesn鈥檛 masquerade as anything but a cultural convention.鈥�
Yes, just like the internet claims to be nothing more than a socially liberating form of communication!
* Deutscher calls it a 鈥榣ens.鈥� I鈥檓 generalising a bit from that; but I think making the metaphor more useful. The title as well as the contents is an oblique homage to the philosopher, Richard Rorty's, 1981 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. It often does take social sciences, actually science in general, one or two generations to catch up with good philosophy.
Language is a form of technology, perhaps the source-technology from which all others are generated (even if academic linguists have difficulty in seeing it as such).* Language may not look like look a technology because it鈥檚 largely invisible. It takes time and effort to master but then it鈥檚 taken for granted so that it is no longer noticed. But like any technology, it does things for people which couldn鈥檛 be done without it. And like all technologies, language does things to the people who use it which they never anticipated. In both senses - as tool and as environment - language is the most powerful technology ever created.
Or more accurately, the most powerful family of technologies because while all languages allow the same things to be achieved, they don鈥檛 do that in the same way. Some languages, like Ancient Greek, are extremely precise and complicated in their components (words, or as Deutscher calls them: labels) and how these work together (grammar) to form very precise expressions. Others, like Hebrew, are noticeably lacking in many of these features (like extensive vocabularies and tenses). Yet both can be used, more or less efficiently, to express the same ideas. Concepts seem constant while the labels change. Or do they?
The mechanism of the language machine works on us as well as through us. Eons before the term Artificial Intelligence was coined, language itself took on a life of its own and started influencing the lives of human beings in ways of which we are entirely unaware. Its categories and its logics come to be perceived as natural, as an expression of the way the world really is. Things and labels became conjoined. Linguistic truth becomes confused with reality. Reasonableness, another linguistic trait, becomes a universal standard of human behaviour. Language runs the show. Deutscher calls it culture, which is shorthand for language at work.
Of course it isn鈥檛 possible to even discuss the hegemony of language outside of language. So the deck is stacked from the start. But it turns out that there鈥檚 a crack in the Great Linguistic Wall. Each language has some distinctively unique effects on the human beings who use it. Differences can be compared in order to 鈥榦ut鈥� the concealed structures that each language imposes. These differences typically hide in plain sight. As Deutscher says, 鈥渋t turns out that the most significant connections between language, culture, and thought are to be found where they are least expected, in those places where healthy common sense would suggest that all cultures and all languages should be exactly the same.鈥�
Culture likes to masquerade as human nature. Most religions (and more generally, ideologies), for example, claim that their precepts simply reflect the authentic 鈥榖eing鈥� of Homo sapiens and the society that species has created. The discovery that other cultures had different ideas about what constitutes true humanity, typically provokes a sort of fundamentalist response of cultural superiority. And naturally this response is expressed in words, which often contain within themselves the very superiority being argued. What the fundamentalists themselves don鈥檛 understand is that they are being used by the language they think they control.
This is an important book, and not just because it is an interesting and entertaining exposition of recent language-research. More importantly, it lifts the veil of language just enough to see its creative mechanism at work. No language provides a neutral, objective description of the world. All languages come with historical (and ideological) baggage which directs attention and prejudices conversation as much as it allows communication and cooperation. It probably takes as much effort to recognise this as it does to learn a language in the first place. The fact is that 鈥渓anguage is a cultural convention that doesn鈥檛 masquerade as anything but a cultural convention.鈥�
Yes, just like the internet claims to be nothing more than a socially liberating form of communication!
* Deutscher calls it a 鈥榣ens.鈥� I鈥檓 generalising a bit from that; but I think making the metaphor more useful. The title as well as the contents is an oblique homage to the philosopher, Richard Rorty's, 1981 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. It often does take social sciences, actually science in general, one or two generations to catch up with good philosophy.
September 7, 2015
I suppose I hold linguists to a higher standard than civilians regarding their word choice and articulation of ideas. After all, if there's one category of people who should know about the power of words, it's this one. Which is why I'm so disappointed by this book.
The book is called Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. When you're done with it, you would expect to know why, according to the author, the world... looks different... in other languages. And while one or two chapters towards the end of the book attempt to tackle this question, they only offer evidence relating to a few areas, namely colour, gender and geographical orientation. Things that aren't exactly secrets, that most people who have heard about languages will already know vary from one to another.
The bulk of the book is mainly concerned in history and anecdotes. The history of the study of colour perception takes up most of the first half of the book. While interesting in itself, it has little to do with language and with the purported thesis of the book. Reading digression after digression gets infuriating. I'm tempted to say this book needs an editor, but if it was properly edited, it would be reduced by eighty percent, so...
Of course most people must have enjoyed Deutscher's rambles. The reason I didn't, apart from the fact that, well, he doesn't stick to his thesis, is that I hated his narrative voice. To me, the idea that you can write a book about languages, including endangered aboriginal languages, without once using the words "racism," "colonialism" or "imperialism" -- or mentioning these ideas -- is simply outlandish. See for instance page 193: "Together with Guugu Yimithirr, hundreds of other 'tropical languages' are going to the wall, dispersed by the onward march of civilisation." I'd call what's happening to aboriginal languages in Australia a lot of things, but "dispersed by the onward march of civilisation" isn't one of them.
Deutscher's unwillingness to address the reason why most linguists nowadays are adamant that all languages are equally complex does him a disservice too. No one is pretending that all languages have clause subordination. No one is pretending that language complexity is measurable at all. What people are saying is that all languages allow people to express the same complex ideas -- a kind of refutation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, if you will. Which is Deutscher's thesis, too, so why not come out and say that Sapir-Whorf relies on racism and imperialism, and that the idea that all languages are equally complex is an attempt to push back against that?
But then again, the fact that Deutscher chooses to use such words as "savage" and "primitive" to describe certain societies or languages kind of provides the answer to that. He is a linguist. He knows that words are not contained by their etymologies, and he knows how those words have been used, and in whose mouths. Yet not only does he use them, he never justifies his use of them.
All in all, the best bits in this book are the ones about the study of colour perception. I wish Deutscher had written a book about that instead. The bits that are actually about what the book says it's about aren't that juicy, and if you're interested in languages you've probably heard about them already. (Many languages have genders! It doesn't mean that French speakers think knives are men and forks are women!) This book could also have benefited from a rudimentary knowledge of translation studies. It's one thing to speak several languages, but another completely to be able to translate to and from them -- otherwise all bilinguals would be translators. Authors such as Meschonnic or Berman have already thought, a lot, about most of the implicit questions in this book. It's a shame that while most translators and translation theorists know quite a lot about linguistics, most linguists know virtually nothing about translation theory.
The book is called Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. When you're done with it, you would expect to know why, according to the author, the world... looks different... in other languages. And while one or two chapters towards the end of the book attempt to tackle this question, they only offer evidence relating to a few areas, namely colour, gender and geographical orientation. Things that aren't exactly secrets, that most people who have heard about languages will already know vary from one to another.
The bulk of the book is mainly concerned in history and anecdotes. The history of the study of colour perception takes up most of the first half of the book. While interesting in itself, it has little to do with language and with the purported thesis of the book. Reading digression after digression gets infuriating. I'm tempted to say this book needs an editor, but if it was properly edited, it would be reduced by eighty percent, so...
Of course most people must have enjoyed Deutscher's rambles. The reason I didn't, apart from the fact that, well, he doesn't stick to his thesis, is that I hated his narrative voice. To me, the idea that you can write a book about languages, including endangered aboriginal languages, without once using the words "racism," "colonialism" or "imperialism" -- or mentioning these ideas -- is simply outlandish. See for instance page 193: "Together with Guugu Yimithirr, hundreds of other 'tropical languages' are going to the wall, dispersed by the onward march of civilisation." I'd call what's happening to aboriginal languages in Australia a lot of things, but "dispersed by the onward march of civilisation" isn't one of them.
Deutscher's unwillingness to address the reason why most linguists nowadays are adamant that all languages are equally complex does him a disservice too. No one is pretending that all languages have clause subordination. No one is pretending that language complexity is measurable at all. What people are saying is that all languages allow people to express the same complex ideas -- a kind of refutation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, if you will. Which is Deutscher's thesis, too, so why not come out and say that Sapir-Whorf relies on racism and imperialism, and that the idea that all languages are equally complex is an attempt to push back against that?
But then again, the fact that Deutscher chooses to use such words as "savage" and "primitive" to describe certain societies or languages kind of provides the answer to that. He is a linguist. He knows that words are not contained by their etymologies, and he knows how those words have been used, and in whose mouths. Yet not only does he use them, he never justifies his use of them.
All in all, the best bits in this book are the ones about the study of colour perception. I wish Deutscher had written a book about that instead. The bits that are actually about what the book says it's about aren't that juicy, and if you're interested in languages you've probably heard about them already. (Many languages have genders! It doesn't mean that French speakers think knives are men and forks are women!) This book could also have benefited from a rudimentary knowledge of translation studies. It's one thing to speak several languages, but another completely to be able to translate to and from them -- otherwise all bilinguals would be translators. Authors such as Meschonnic or Berman have already thought, a lot, about most of the implicit questions in this book. It's a shame that while most translators and translation theorists know quite a lot about linguistics, most linguists know virtually nothing about translation theory.
January 21, 2015
This is a fascinating book about how culture shapes language, and how language shapes our view of reality. Guy Deutscher is a linguist, and he separates out in some detail, the facts of this subject from fiction.
Because, there is a lot of "fiction". Much of what we have heard about how language shapes our world-view is false. Nietzsche's line that "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world" is absolutely false. A true statement would be "Languages differ in what they must convey, not in what they may convey." In other words, languages force their speakers to use certain words in describing concepts, but languages do not constrain their speakers from discussing concepts.
The fact that a language lacks a word that describes some concept, does not mean that its speakers are unaware of that concept. It just means, probably, that the concept is either not too important in that culture, or that it is so all-encompassing that it does not require a special word.
The first half of the book discusses the language mirror--that is, how language mirrors its culture. The second part discusses the language lens--how language shapes the world-view of its speakers.
The book starts out with a description of a big study by the prime minister of England, William Gladstone, of the works of Homer. in one chapter, he shows that the ancient Greeks did not use words that describe most colors. They used words for "black" and "white", and rarely "red" or other colors. He concluded that the ancient Greeks were color-blind, and that over the course of millennia, evolution changed human vision.
Gladstone was originally criticized for his outrageous theory--but in a sense, he was right on the mark. The ancient Greeks did not have words for all the colors, and it was evolution--cultural evolution--that gradually brought more color words into the Greek vocabulary. And it wasn't just the ancient Greeks. Many contemporary languages in remote corners of the globe also have few words for colors.
It used to be thought that the complexity of a language mirrors the complexity of its society. It is virtually impossible to objectively measure the overall complexity of a language. But the complexity of certain aspects of a language are measurable. For example, the morphological complexity of a language (the complexity of individual words) is inversely correlated with the size of population that speaks it. This is rather surprising, and the author can only speculate on the reasons. One amazing example is given, in the language of the Matses, a small tribe on the Amazon. Their verbs are incredibly complex. They have four past-tense forms of verbs that describe how far back in time an action took place. But in addition, verbs must also describe "evidentiality". The verb must describe how the speaker learned of the action. Does the verb express a direct experience (something the speaker saw with his own eyes), or something inferred, something conjectured, or hearsay? Each and every verb must describe all this detail, in a single word!
I found the language lens to be absolutely fascinating. It is very difficult for linguists or psychologists to isolate some aspect of a person's world-view, and to say that it is not only correlated with, but caused by some aspect of his language. But, this has been done definitively in three areas; spatial concepts, gender, and color. For example, in English (and most European languages, I think), there are both ego-centric (up, down, in front, behind, left, right) and geo-centric (North, South, East, West) descriptors. But, some languages only have ego-centric desriptors, while others have only geo-centric words. Ego-centric descriptors are mostly useful in urban areas, such as when you need to give someone directions (go up the elevator to the 5th floor, turn right, pass two doors and take the corridor on the left). In the countryside, geo-centric descriptions might sometimes be more useful (the river running to the south of the lake). The tribes that speak languages that only have geo-centric descriptions learn from a very early age to set up an internal compass. This compass works regardless of visibility conditions; it works in a dense forest, in swamps, sand dunes, and in caves. Only if your transport the speaker of such a language by airplane does he lose his sense of direction. It's hard to imagine, that such a person will never say "the cow to my left" but instead would say "the cow to the north of me".
Occasionally this book seems a bit repetitive. But it is a fine example of scientific digging for subtle answers to important questions.
Because, there is a lot of "fiction". Much of what we have heard about how language shapes our world-view is false. Nietzsche's line that "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world" is absolutely false. A true statement would be "Languages differ in what they must convey, not in what they may convey." In other words, languages force their speakers to use certain words in describing concepts, but languages do not constrain their speakers from discussing concepts.
The fact that a language lacks a word that describes some concept, does not mean that its speakers are unaware of that concept. It just means, probably, that the concept is either not too important in that culture, or that it is so all-encompassing that it does not require a special word.
The first half of the book discusses the language mirror--that is, how language mirrors its culture. The second part discusses the language lens--how language shapes the world-view of its speakers.
The book starts out with a description of a big study by the prime minister of England, William Gladstone, of the works of Homer. in one chapter, he shows that the ancient Greeks did not use words that describe most colors. They used words for "black" and "white", and rarely "red" or other colors. He concluded that the ancient Greeks were color-blind, and that over the course of millennia, evolution changed human vision.
Gladstone was originally criticized for his outrageous theory--but in a sense, he was right on the mark. The ancient Greeks did not have words for all the colors, and it was evolution--cultural evolution--that gradually brought more color words into the Greek vocabulary. And it wasn't just the ancient Greeks. Many contemporary languages in remote corners of the globe also have few words for colors.
It used to be thought that the complexity of a language mirrors the complexity of its society. It is virtually impossible to objectively measure the overall complexity of a language. But the complexity of certain aspects of a language are measurable. For example, the morphological complexity of a language (the complexity of individual words) is inversely correlated with the size of population that speaks it. This is rather surprising, and the author can only speculate on the reasons. One amazing example is given, in the language of the Matses, a small tribe on the Amazon. Their verbs are incredibly complex. They have four past-tense forms of verbs that describe how far back in time an action took place. But in addition, verbs must also describe "evidentiality". The verb must describe how the speaker learned of the action. Does the verb express a direct experience (something the speaker saw with his own eyes), or something inferred, something conjectured, or hearsay? Each and every verb must describe all this detail, in a single word!
I found the language lens to be absolutely fascinating. It is very difficult for linguists or psychologists to isolate some aspect of a person's world-view, and to say that it is not only correlated with, but caused by some aspect of his language. But, this has been done definitively in three areas; spatial concepts, gender, and color. For example, in English (and most European languages, I think), there are both ego-centric (up, down, in front, behind, left, right) and geo-centric (North, South, East, West) descriptors. But, some languages only have ego-centric desriptors, while others have only geo-centric words. Ego-centric descriptors are mostly useful in urban areas, such as when you need to give someone directions (go up the elevator to the 5th floor, turn right, pass two doors and take the corridor on the left). In the countryside, geo-centric descriptions might sometimes be more useful (the river running to the south of the lake). The tribes that speak languages that only have geo-centric descriptions learn from a very early age to set up an internal compass. This compass works regardless of visibility conditions; it works in a dense forest, in swamps, sand dunes, and in caves. Only if your transport the speaker of such a language by airplane does he lose his sense of direction. It's hard to imagine, that such a person will never say "the cow to my left" but instead would say "the cow to the north of me".
Occasionally this book seems a bit repetitive. But it is a fine example of scientific digging for subtle answers to important questions.
May 8, 2016
賷亘丿賵 兀賳 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 丕賱賱睾丞 賱丕 鬲賳賯囟賷 毓噩丕卅亘賴丕... 賵 賱丕 卮賮丕亍 賲賳 賲爻賴丕... 賮亘毓丿 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱 毓賳 兀賷賴賲丕 賷鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱丌禺乇 丕賱毓賯賱 亘丕賱賱睾丞 兀賲 丕賱賱睾丞 亘丕賱毓賯賱貙 丕賱匕賷 丕爻鬲賵胤賳賳賷 賲匕 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賲鬲賰賱賲賷賳... 賯賮夭 爻丐丕賱 丌禺乇 賲賳 噩賳爻賴 賱賰賳 兀賰孬乇 賮乇丕丿丞 賵 丕賯鬲乇丕亘丕 賲賳 廿賲賰丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賱廿賲賰丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 賵 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘貙 賴賱 鬲鬲睾賷乇 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞責 賰鬲丕亘 睾丕賷 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 (毓亘乇 賲賳馗丕乇 丕賱賱睾丞貨 賱賽賲賻 賷亘丿賵 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲禺鬲賱賮丕 亘賱睾丕鬲 兀禺乇賶責) 賷賮鬲丨 賱賳丕 亘丕亘丕 毓乇賷囟丕 噩丿賷丿丕 賱賴匕丕 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱... 賰鬲丕亘 賱匕賷匕 賷噩賲毓 亘賷賳 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷 賵 丕賱馗乇賮 賵 丕賱睾乇丕亘丞... 鬲爻毓丞 賮氐賵賱 毓噩賷亘丞 鬲賱賮 亘賰 丨賵賱 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵 丕賱毓氐賵乇 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱噩賵丕亘... 賵 賷囟毓賰 兀賲丕賲 兀賮賰丕乇 賱賲 鬲禺胤乇 賱賰 賯亘賱丕... 賮丕賱兀夭乇賯 賲孬賱丕 賱賲 賷賰賳 賱賴 丕爻賲 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丕鬲 賯丿賷賲丕 賵 廿賳賲丕 賷賳丿乇噩 賲毓 丕賱兀禺囟乇 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱鬲爻賲賷丞貙 廿匕 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 丨丕噩丞 賱廿賮乇丕丿賴 亘丕爻賲! 賵 賱睾丞 鬲丨鬲丕噩 賲賳 賲鬲賰賱賲賷賴丕 禺亘乇丞 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 賱兀賳賴丕 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 賮賷 兀亘爻胤 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱兀賲丕賰賳 丕賱噩賴丕鬲 丕賱噩睾乇丕賮賷丞 丕賱禺丕乇噩賷丞 丕賱兀乇亘毓丞 賲賳 卮乇賯 賵 噩賳賵亘 賵 卮賲丕賱 賵 睾乇亘貙 毓賵囟丕 毓賳 丕賱賲賵賯毓 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 賰丕賱賷賲賷賳 賵 丕賱賷爻丕乇 賵 丕賱禺賱賮 賵 丕賱兀賲丕賲! 賵 賱睾丞 賯亘賷賱丞 丕賱賲丕鬲爻賷爻 賲賳 丕賱兀賲丕夭賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲賱賰 賳馗丕賲丕 亘乇賴丕賳賷丕 賷鬲胤賱亘 賲賳 賲鬲賰賱賲賴丕 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 亘丕乇毓丕 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 丨賷孬 毓賱賷賴 丕賱廿賮氐丕丨 毓賳 丕賱賰賷賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵氐賱 亘賴丕 賱賱丨丿孬 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳賴 兀賴賷 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇丞 兀賲 丕賱丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 兀賲 丕賱廿卮丕毓丞 兀賲 丕賱丨丿爻貙 賵 賰兀賳賴丕 賱睾丞 賲卮鬲賯丞 賲賳 賯丕毓丕鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲! 賵 兀賮賰丕乇 兀禺乇賶 胤乇賷賮丞...賴
丕賱賲丐賱賮 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 亘丿丕 賲鬲賵丕囟毓丕 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴貙 賮賰丕賳 丿賯賷賯丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲賯賱賷賱 賲賳 丕賱賯胤毓賷丕鬲 賮賷 兀孬賳丕亍 丨丿賷孬賴 賮賷 賲毓馗賲 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賮賲丕 賷噩賴賱賴 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賳 兀孬乇賴丕 兀賰孬乇 亘賰孬賷乇 賲賲丕 賷毓乇賮賵賳賴貙 賵 禺丕氐丞 兀賳賴 毓乇囟 賱賳丕 鬲丕乇賷禺丕 賱亘毓囟 賲賳 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賱爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲鬲亘噩丨丞 鬲噩丕賴 賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀賯賵丕賲 "睾賷乇 丕賱亘賷囟"貙 賱賲 賷亘賯 賲賳賴丕 亘毓丿 毓賯賵丿 賲賳 丕賱亘丨孬 廿賱丕 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 丕賱爻丕匕噩丞 丕賱賲孬賷乇丞 賱賱爻禺乇賷丞... 賵 賴匕丕 賲丕 噩毓賱賴 賵丕囟毓丕 賷丿賴 毓賱賶 賯賱亘賴 賰賱賲丕 匕賰乇 賳鬲賷噩丞貙 賲毓鬲匕乇丕 賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賲胤丕賮 賱賱兀噩賷丕賱 丕賱丌鬲賷丞 亘兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賳鬲賴賶 賱丿賷賳丕 賮賷 毓氐乇賳丕...賴
賲丕 鬲胤乇賯 賱賴 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賲孬賱丞 賮賷 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞: "丕賱廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 丕賱賲賰丕賳賷丞 賵 賲丕 賷鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳 兀賳賲丕胤 匕丕賰乇丞 賵 丨爻 丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲貙 丕賱噩賳丿乇 丕賱賳丨賵賷 賵 鬲兀孬賷乇賴 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞貙 賵 賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱鬲賷 賱賴丕 兀賳 鬲毓夭夭 賲賳 廿丨爻丕爻賳丕 亘賮乇賵賯丕鬲 賱賵賳賷丞 賲毓賷賳丞."氐256
賮賴匕丕 兀賰孬乇 賲丕 丕爻鬲賵孬賯 賲賳賴 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳...賴
賵 兀賴賲 賳鬲賷噩丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 兀賳 賲丕 鬲禺鬲賱賮 亘賴 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 毓賳 亘毓囟賴丕 賴賵 賮賷 賲丕 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賳賯賱賴 賲賳 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賵 賱賷爻 賮賷賲丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 鬲賳賯賱賴貙 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賳馗乇賷丕 賷賲賰賳賴丕 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲貙 賱賰賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賴賵 賮賷賲丕 鬲賮乇囟賴 毓賱賶 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬賷賳 亘賴丕 丨賷賳 鬲毓亘賷乇賴賲 毓賳 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲... 賲孬丕賱 亘爻賷胤貙 兀賳賴 廿賳 兀禺亘乇鬲賳丕 "兀賴丿鬲賳賷 氐丿賷賯鬲賷 賴丿賷丞"貙 賮賮賷 丕賱丕賳賰賱賷夭賷丞 賱爻鬲 賲胤丕賱亘丕 亘丕賱丕賮氐丕丨 毓賳 噩賳爻 賴匕丕 丕賱氐丿賷賯 賮賷 丕賱噩賲賱丞貙 賱賰賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 鬲賱噩卅賰 賱賴匕丕... 賮廿匕賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賴丕 賳賵毓 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 夭丕卅丿 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱賷禺亘乇 亘賴... 兀賵 賲孬賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱兀賲丕夭賵賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賴丕 兀賳 賷禺亘乇 毓賳 賰賷賮賷丞 丨氐賵賱賴 毓賱賶 丕賱禺亘乇 賰賱賲丕 兀乇丕丿 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 禺亘乇 賲丕... 兀賵 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賴丕 兀賳 賷毓乇賮 廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲賴... 賱賰賳 賴匕丕 賱丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賯丕氐乇丞 毓賳 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賲賵乇貙 賵 賱賰賳賴丕 賮賯胤 賱丕 鬲胤丕賱亘賰 亘賴匕丕 賮賷 丕賱禺胤丕亘 丕賱毓丕丿賷... 賵 賱匕賱賰 賱爻鬲 賲囟胤乇丕 賲孬賱丕 賱廿乇賴丕賯 丿賲丕睾賰 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 兀賷賳 乇賰賳鬲 爻賷丕乇鬲賰 賳丨賵 丕賱噩賳賵亘 兀賵 丕賱睾乇亘 廿賳 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賳丕胤賯丕 亘賱睾丞 "丕賱睾賵睾賵 賷賲孬賷乇"貙 賵 賱賰賳賰 廿賳 賰賳鬲 賳丕胤賯丕 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賮賱賳 賷乇賴賯 丿賲丕睾賰 兀氐賱丕貙 賱兀賳賰 丕毓鬲丿鬲 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 賲賳匕 丕賱氐睾乇... 賰賲丕 兀賳賰 賯丕丿乇 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賮丕賱兀賲乇 賲鬲丕丨 賵 賱賰賳賴 賱賷爻 賲爻鬲賱夭賲丕 賰丕賱睾賵睾賵 賷賲孬賷乇...賴
"廿賳 賰丕賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賷 賮賰乇 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 賲鬲毓丿丿 丕賱兀卮賰丕賱貙 賮賱賷爻 匕賱賰 亘爻亘亘 賲丕 鬲鬲賷丨賴 賰賱 賱睾丞 賱賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 賲賳 賮賰乇貙 亘賱 亘爻亘亘 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮乇囟 賰賱 賱睾丞 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘賴丕. 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲賮乇囟 賱睾丞 賲丕 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘兀賵噩賴 賲毓賷賳丞 賲賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賰賱賲丕 賳胤賯賵丕 亘賴丕 兀賵 丕爻鬲賲毓賵丕 廿賱賷賴丕貙 爻鬲爻鬲賯乇 毓丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵 丕賱丕爻鬲賲丕毓 鬲賱賰 賱鬲氐亘丨 毓丕丿丕鬲 毓賯賱賷丞 鬲丐孬乇 賮賷 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 賵 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 兀賵 丕賱鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱匕賴賳賷 兀賵 丨鬲賶 丕賱賲賴丕乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞" 氐173
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩毓賱 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 鬲賳亘孬賯 賮賷 匕賴賳賷: 賴
賲丿賶 乇賵毓丞 丕賱禺賱賯 賮賷 鬲毓丿丿 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 {賵 賲賳 丌賷丕鬲賴 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 兀賱爻賳鬲賰賲 賵 兀賱賵丕賳賰賲 廿賳 賮賷 匕賱賰 賱丌賷丕鬲 賱賱毓丕賱賲賷賳}貙 賵 丕爻鬲卮毓乇鬲 賲孬賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 亘丕賱兀爻賮 賲賳 丨賯賷賯丞 兀賳 賰孬賷乇丕 賲賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕禺鬲賮鬲 兀賵 賲賴丿丿丞 亘丕賱丕禺鬲賮丕亍... 賱兀賳 賴匕丕 賷賮賯丿 丕賱毓丕賱賲 噩賵丕賳亘 兀禺乇賶 賱賱鬲兀賲賱 鬲爻丕毓丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賳馗乇 賮賷 夭賵丕賷丕 賱賲 鬲禺胤乇 賲賳 賯亘賱 丨賷賳 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丕鬲貙 賵 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 爻賷賳毓賰爻 賴匕丕 毓賱賶 賮賴賲賳丕 賱賱睾鬲賳丕 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賵 賵馗賷賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲貙 廿匕 爻賷賯賱 丕賳賰卮丕賮賴丕 賮賷 亘毓囟 噩賵丕賳亘賴丕 丕賱鬲賷 賳丨鬲丕噩 賮賷賴丕 賱賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 賲毓 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮 丨鬲賶 賳丿乇賰賴丕... 賴
:(
-
亘賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賮乇賵賯丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲氐賱 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷貙 賮賰賱 丕賱賳丕爻 噩賵賴乇賷丕 鬲賮賰乇 亘賳賮爻 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞貙 賮禺胤乇 賱賷 兀賳賴 賳馗乇賷丕 廿匕賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賰賱 賱睾丞 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賲賳 亘賳賷鬲賴丕 丕賱禺丕氐丞貙 賲賳 丿賵賳 丕賱丨丕噩丞 賱丕爻鬲賷乇丕丿 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 乇賰賷賰丞 賱睾賵賷丕 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳賴... 兀賱賷爻 賰匕賱賰責... 賱賰賳 丨爻亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賲丕 賮賰乇鬲 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 廿賱丕 賱兀賳賳丕 鬲乇毓乇毓賳丕 賮賷 孬賯丕賮丞 鬲乇亘胤 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 賲毓 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賵 鬲毓馗賲 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賵 鬲賯賱賱 賲賳 卮兀賳 丕賱毓賲賱賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱兀禺乇賶貙 賵 賱匕賱賰 賴匕丕 丕賱匕賷 禺胤乇 賱賷 丨賷賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘丕賱賱睾丞 "亘賷丿 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱乇兀賷 賱丕 賷鬲賵丕賮賯 賲毓 丕賱丿賵乇 丕賱賲鬲賵丕囟毓 丕賱匕賷 賷丨鬲賱賴 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賮賷 鬲噩丕乇亘賳丕 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞 [...] 賷馗賴乇 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱兀賲 丕賱匕賷 噩乇賶 廿孬亘丕鬲賴 毓賲賱賷丕 賮賷 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賮賰乇 賲孬賱 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 賵 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 賵 鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 兀賵 賮賷 丕賱賲賴丕乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 賲孬賱 丨爻 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲. 賵 賮賷 鬲噩丕乇亘 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞 賱丕 鬲賯賱 兀賴賲賷丞 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀賵噩賴 賲賳 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱鬲噩乇賷丿賷貙 亘賱 賯丿 鬲夭賷丿 兀賴賲賷鬲賴丕" 氐257
廿匕賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 丕賱賱睾丞 賴賷 賲丕 鬲乇鬲亘 兀賵賱賵賷丕鬲 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 兀賷囟丕... 賴
-
賵 賴匕丕 賷賯賵丿賳賷 賱賮賰乇丞 兀禺乇賶 兀賳賴 胤丕賱賲丕 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賱賴丕 賳賮爻 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賰賱 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 賳馗乇賷丕貙 賮賴匕丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳賴 丨賷賳 賷賯氐乇 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賮賷 賱睾丞 賲丕 賮丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕... 賮丕賱賱睾丞 賲丐孬乇丞 賵 賲鬲兀孬乇丞... 賮亘丿賱 丕賱毓賲賱 毓賱賶 廿孬乇丕卅賴丕 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賳賯丕卮 賵 丕賱丕卮鬲賯丕賯 賷購毓賲丿 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓亘乇 賱睾丞 孬丕賳賷丞貙 賵 賴匕丕 賲賳 卮兀賳賴 兀賳 賷賯鬲賱賴丕 卮賷卅丕 賮卮賷卅丕... 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 囟毓賮 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵 鬲禺賱賮賴丕 賵 噩賲賵丿賴丕 賱匕丕鬲賴丕貙 賴賵 丨丿賷孬 毓丕胤賮賷 賳賮爻賷 賵 賱賷爻 賰賱丕賲丕 賲亘賳賷丕 毓賱賶 丨賯賷賯丞 賱睾賵賷丞貙 賵 賴賵 賷卮丕亘賴 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賱爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕乇賷丞 丕賱賲賳丿孬乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇... 廿賳 亘賳賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賯丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 兀賷 賲賮賴賵賲貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 賲賵賯毓 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賵 毓丿賲 丕賲鬲賱丕賰賴賲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賵 丕賱鬲爻賲賷丞... 賵 賲賳 賷賲賱賰 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 丕賱賯賵丞 賴賵 賲賳 賷毓亘乇 賵 賷賮乇囟 鬲毓丕亘賷乇賴... 丕賱賱睾丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賯胤 賲丐孬乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕 亘賱 兀賷囟丕 賲鬲兀孬乇丞 亘賴賲... 賵 賴賲 丕賱匕賷賳 賷卅丿賵賴丕 兀賵 賷丨賷賵賴丕... 賱匕賱賰 鬲噩丿 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賲夭丿賴乇丞 賵 睾賳賷丞 亘丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賲噩乇丿丞 賵 廿胤賱丕賯 丕賱丕氐胤賱丕丨丕鬲 丨賷賳 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 賲夭丿賴乇丞... 賵 禺賮鬲鬲 亘禺賮賵鬲 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕... 賵 廿賳賲丕 鬲鬲賲丕賷夭 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 兀賷囟丕 亘賲丿賶 禺丿賲丞 兀亘賳丕卅賴丕 賱賴丕 賵 鬲丿賵賷賳賴丕 賵 鬲賳賵毓 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕... 賮賲孬賱丕 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱卮賮賵賷丞 鬲亘丿賵 兀囟毓賮 賵 兀賰孬乇 毓乇囟丞 賱賱丕賳丿孬丕乇 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲丿賵賳丞 賱噩乇賷丕賳 丕賱賳爻賷丕賳 毓賱賶 賲丕 賱賲 賷爻鬲禺丿賲 賲賳賴丕 賲賳 丿賵賳 賯乇胤丕爻 賷丨賮馗賴丕... 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳胤賯 亘賴丕 兀賮乇丕丿 賯賱丞 賮賷 賯亘賷賱丞 賲丕 兀賯賱 孬乇丕亍 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳胤賯 亘賴丕 丕賱賲賱丕賷賷賳貙 賵 匕賱賰 賱兀賳 丕賱賰孬乇丞 鬲孬乇賷 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱賯賱丞 鬲毓賲丿 賱賱丕禺鬲夭丕賱...賴
廿賳 丕賱賱賴 廿賳賲丕 兀賳夭賱 丕賱賯乇丌賳 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞... 賵 兀賰丿 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 亘賯賵賱賴 {賵賴匕丕 賱爻丕賳 毓乇亘賷 賲亘賷賳} 賵 丕賱廿亘丕賳丞 賴賷 丕賱廿賮氐丕丨... 賮丕賱賱賴 賯丿 兀乇丕丿 賱賴匕賴 丕賱賱睾丞 亘丕賱匕丕鬲 兀賳 鬲毓亘乇 毓賳 賰賱丕賲賴 賵 賵爻賲賴丕 亘丕賱廿賮氐丕丨... 賵 兀乇丕丿 賱賲賳 丕禺鬲丕乇 賮賴賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賯乇丌賳 賵 丿賷賳賴 兀賳 賷鬲毓賱賲 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞貙 賵 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賷賰爻亘 亘毓囟 丕賱丕氐胤賱丕丨丕鬲 賵 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賰賲丕 兀賳夭賱鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯乇丌賳... 賵 賱賰賳 丨鬲賶 賳毓乇賮 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱賲夭丕賷丕 賮賷 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮鬲乇賯 亘賴丕 毓賳 睾賷乇賴丕 賮賷 賲丕 鬲亘賷賳賴 兀賷 鬲賮氐丨 毓賳賴貙 賵 賲丕 賴賷 夭賵丕賷丕 丕賱賳馗乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲胤賱亘 賲賳 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕 丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 亘賴丕 夭賷丕丿丞 賲賯丕乇賳丞 賲毓 睾賷乇賴丕貙 賮賱丕 亘丿 賲賳 丿乇丕爻丕鬲 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘賷賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶... 賵 賴匕丕 賮乇毓 賲毓乇賮賷 賲賴賲 賱鬲亘丨孬 賮賷賴 丕賱兀噩賷丕賱 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱丌鬲賷丞貙 廿賳 禺乇噩賳丕 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 丕賱賲賮氐賱賷丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 兀丨賷丕亍 賲丨賷賷賳 賰賲丕 兀爻兀賱 丕賱賱賴貙 賵 賱賲 賳賮賳 賳丨賳 丕賱毓乇亘 噩賲賷毓丕 賲毓 賱睾鬲賳丕貙 賰賲丕 賷購賭賰丕丿 賱賳丕...賴
廿賳賲丕 賴賵 賰鬲丕亘 賱匕賷匕 賵 毓噩賷亘貙 兀賳氐丨 亘賴 賰賱 賲丨亘 賱賱睾丞... 賵 兀卮鬲賴賷 賱賵 兀賯乇兀 賰鬲亘丕 兀禺乇賶 丨賵賱 賳賮爻 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓...賴
爻賱賲賶
17 卮亘丕胤
2016
丕賱賲丐賱賮 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 亘丿丕 賲鬲賵丕囟毓丕 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴貙 賮賰丕賳 丿賯賷賯丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲賯賱賷賱 賲賳 丕賱賯胤毓賷丕鬲 賮賷 兀孬賳丕亍 丨丿賷孬賴 賮賷 賲毓馗賲 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賮賲丕 賷噩賴賱賴 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賳 兀孬乇賴丕 兀賰孬乇 亘賰孬賷乇 賲賲丕 賷毓乇賮賵賳賴貙 賵 禺丕氐丞 兀賳賴 毓乇囟 賱賳丕 鬲丕乇賷禺丕 賱亘毓囟 賲賳 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賱爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲鬲亘噩丨丞 鬲噩丕賴 賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀賯賵丕賲 "睾賷乇 丕賱亘賷囟"貙 賱賲 賷亘賯 賲賳賴丕 亘毓丿 毓賯賵丿 賲賳 丕賱亘丨孬 廿賱丕 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 丕賱爻丕匕噩丞 丕賱賲孬賷乇丞 賱賱爻禺乇賷丞... 賵 賴匕丕 賲丕 噩毓賱賴 賵丕囟毓丕 賷丿賴 毓賱賶 賯賱亘賴 賰賱賲丕 匕賰乇 賳鬲賷噩丞貙 賲毓鬲匕乇丕 賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賲胤丕賮 賱賱兀噩賷丕賱 丕賱丌鬲賷丞 亘兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賳鬲賴賶 賱丿賷賳丕 賮賷 毓氐乇賳丕...賴
賲丕 鬲胤乇賯 賱賴 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賲孬賱丞 賮賷 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞: "丕賱廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 丕賱賲賰丕賳賷丞 賵 賲丕 賷鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳 兀賳賲丕胤 匕丕賰乇丞 賵 丨爻 丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲貙 丕賱噩賳丿乇 丕賱賳丨賵賷 賵 鬲兀孬賷乇賴 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞貙 賵 賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱鬲賷 賱賴丕 兀賳 鬲毓夭夭 賲賳 廿丨爻丕爻賳丕 亘賮乇賵賯丕鬲 賱賵賳賷丞 賲毓賷賳丞."氐256
賮賴匕丕 兀賰孬乇 賲丕 丕爻鬲賵孬賯 賲賳賴 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳...賴
賵 兀賴賲 賳鬲賷噩丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 兀賳 賲丕 鬲禺鬲賱賮 亘賴 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 毓賳 亘毓囟賴丕 賴賵 賮賷 賲丕 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賳賯賱賴 賲賳 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賵 賱賷爻 賮賷賲丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 鬲賳賯賱賴貙 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賳馗乇賷丕 賷賲賰賳賴丕 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲貙 賱賰賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賴賵 賮賷賲丕 鬲賮乇囟賴 毓賱賶 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬賷賳 亘賴丕 丨賷賳 鬲毓亘賷乇賴賲 毓賳 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲... 賲孬丕賱 亘爻賷胤貙 兀賳賴 廿賳 兀禺亘乇鬲賳丕 "兀賴丿鬲賳賷 氐丿賷賯鬲賷 賴丿賷丞"貙 賮賮賷 丕賱丕賳賰賱賷夭賷丞 賱爻鬲 賲胤丕賱亘丕 亘丕賱丕賮氐丕丨 毓賳 噩賳爻 賴匕丕 丕賱氐丿賷賯 賮賷 丕賱噩賲賱丞貙 賱賰賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 鬲賱噩卅賰 賱賴匕丕... 賮廿匕賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賴丕 賳賵毓 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 夭丕卅丿 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱賷禺亘乇 亘賴... 兀賵 賲孬賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱兀賲丕夭賵賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賴丕 兀賳 賷禺亘乇 毓賳 賰賷賮賷丞 丨氐賵賱賴 毓賱賶 丕賱禺亘乇 賰賱賲丕 兀乇丕丿 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 禺亘乇 賲丕... 兀賵 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賴丕 兀賳 賷毓乇賮 廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲賴... 賱賰賳 賴匕丕 賱丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賯丕氐乇丞 毓賳 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賲賵乇貙 賵 賱賰賳賴丕 賮賯胤 賱丕 鬲胤丕賱亘賰 亘賴匕丕 賮賷 丕賱禺胤丕亘 丕賱毓丕丿賷... 賵 賱匕賱賰 賱爻鬲 賲囟胤乇丕 賲孬賱丕 賱廿乇賴丕賯 丿賲丕睾賰 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 兀賷賳 乇賰賳鬲 爻賷丕乇鬲賰 賳丨賵 丕賱噩賳賵亘 兀賵 丕賱睾乇亘 廿賳 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賳丕胤賯丕 亘賱睾丞 "丕賱睾賵睾賵 賷賲孬賷乇"貙 賵 賱賰賳賰 廿賳 賰賳鬲 賳丕胤賯丕 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賮賱賳 賷乇賴賯 丿賲丕睾賰 兀氐賱丕貙 賱兀賳賰 丕毓鬲丿鬲 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 賲賳匕 丕賱氐睾乇... 賰賲丕 兀賳賰 賯丕丿乇 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賮丕賱兀賲乇 賲鬲丕丨 賵 賱賰賳賴 賱賷爻 賲爻鬲賱夭賲丕 賰丕賱睾賵睾賵 賷賲孬賷乇...賴
"廿賳 賰丕賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賷 賮賰乇 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 賲鬲毓丿丿 丕賱兀卮賰丕賱貙 賮賱賷爻 匕賱賰 亘爻亘亘 賲丕 鬲鬲賷丨賴 賰賱 賱睾丞 賱賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 賲賳 賮賰乇貙 亘賱 亘爻亘亘 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮乇囟 賰賱 賱睾丞 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘賴丕. 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲賮乇囟 賱睾丞 賲丕 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賴丕 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘兀賵噩賴 賲毓賷賳丞 賲賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賰賱賲丕 賳胤賯賵丕 亘賴丕 兀賵 丕爻鬲賲毓賵丕 廿賱賷賴丕貙 爻鬲爻鬲賯乇 毓丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵 丕賱丕爻鬲賲丕毓 鬲賱賰 賱鬲氐亘丨 毓丕丿丕鬲 毓賯賱賷丞 鬲丐孬乇 賮賷 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 賵 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 兀賵 丕賱鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱匕賴賳賷 兀賵 丨鬲賶 丕賱賲賴丕乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞" 氐173
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩毓賱 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 鬲賳亘孬賯 賮賷 匕賴賳賷: 賴
賲丿賶 乇賵毓丞 丕賱禺賱賯 賮賷 鬲毓丿丿 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 {賵 賲賳 丌賷丕鬲賴 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 兀賱爻賳鬲賰賲 賵 兀賱賵丕賳賰賲 廿賳 賮賷 匕賱賰 賱丌賷丕鬲 賱賱毓丕賱賲賷賳}貙 賵 丕爻鬲卮毓乇鬲 賲孬賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 亘丕賱兀爻賮 賲賳 丨賯賷賯丞 兀賳 賰孬賷乇丕 賲賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕禺鬲賮鬲 兀賵 賲賴丿丿丞 亘丕賱丕禺鬲賮丕亍... 賱兀賳 賴匕丕 賷賮賯丿 丕賱毓丕賱賲 噩賵丕賳亘 兀禺乇賶 賱賱鬲兀賲賱 鬲爻丕毓丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賳馗乇 賮賷 夭賵丕賷丕 賱賲 鬲禺胤乇 賲賳 賯亘賱 丨賷賳 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丕鬲貙 賵 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 爻賷賳毓賰爻 賴匕丕 毓賱賶 賮賴賲賳丕 賱賱睾鬲賳丕 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賵 賵馗賷賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲貙 廿匕 爻賷賯賱 丕賳賰卮丕賮賴丕 賮賷 亘毓囟 噩賵丕賳亘賴丕 丕賱鬲賷 賳丨鬲丕噩 賮賷賴丕 賱賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 賲毓 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮 丨鬲賶 賳丿乇賰賴丕... 賴
:(
-
亘賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賮乇賵賯丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲氐賱 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷貙 賮賰賱 丕賱賳丕爻 噩賵賴乇賷丕 鬲賮賰乇 亘賳賮爻 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞貙 賮禺胤乇 賱賷 兀賳賴 賳馗乇賷丕 廿匕賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賰賱 賱睾丞 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賲賳 亘賳賷鬲賴丕 丕賱禺丕氐丞貙 賲賳 丿賵賳 丕賱丨丕噩丞 賱丕爻鬲賷乇丕丿 毓亘丕乇丕鬲 乇賰賷賰丞 賱睾賵賷丕 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳賴... 兀賱賷爻 賰匕賱賰責... 賱賰賳 丨爻亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賲丕 賮賰乇鬲 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 廿賱丕 賱兀賳賳丕 鬲乇毓乇毓賳丕 賮賷 孬賯丕賮丞 鬲乇亘胤 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 賲毓 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賵 鬲毓馗賲 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賵 鬲賯賱賱 賲賳 卮兀賳 丕賱毓賲賱賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱兀禺乇賶貙 賵 賱匕賱賰 賴匕丕 丕賱匕賷 禺胤乇 賱賷 丨賷賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘丕賱賱睾丞 "亘賷丿 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱乇兀賷 賱丕 賷鬲賵丕賮賯 賲毓 丕賱丿賵乇 丕賱賲鬲賵丕囟毓 丕賱匕賷 賷丨鬲賱賴 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賮賷 鬲噩丕乇亘賳丕 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞 [...] 賷馗賴乇 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱兀賲 丕賱匕賷 噩乇賶 廿孬亘丕鬲賴 毓賲賱賷丕 賮賷 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賮賰乇 賲孬賱 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 賵 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 賵 鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 兀賵 賮賷 丕賱賲賴丕乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 賲孬賱 丨爻 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲. 賵 賮賷 鬲噩丕乇亘 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞 賱丕 鬲賯賱 兀賴賲賷丞 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀賵噩賴 賲賳 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱鬲噩乇賷丿賷貙 亘賱 賯丿 鬲夭賷丿 兀賴賲賷鬲賴丕" 氐257
廿匕賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 丕賱賱睾丞 賴賷 賲丕 鬲乇鬲亘 兀賵賱賵賷丕鬲 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 兀賷囟丕... 賴
-
賵 賴匕丕 賷賯賵丿賳賷 賱賮賰乇丞 兀禺乇賶 兀賳賴 胤丕賱賲丕 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賱賴丕 賳賮爻 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賰賱 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 賳馗乇賷丕貙 賮賴匕丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳賴 丨賷賳 賷賯氐乇 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賮賷 賱睾丞 賲丕 賮丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕... 賮丕賱賱睾丞 賲丐孬乇丞 賵 賲鬲兀孬乇丞... 賮亘丿賱 丕賱毓賲賱 毓賱賶 廿孬乇丕卅賴丕 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賳賯丕卮 賵 丕賱丕卮鬲賯丕賯 賷購毓賲丿 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓亘乇 賱睾丞 孬丕賳賷丞貙 賵 賴匕丕 賲賳 卮兀賳賴 兀賳 賷賯鬲賱賴丕 卮賷卅丕 賮卮賷卅丕... 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 囟毓賮 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵 鬲禺賱賮賴丕 賵 噩賲賵丿賴丕 賱匕丕鬲賴丕貙 賴賵 丨丿賷孬 毓丕胤賮賷 賳賮爻賷 賵 賱賷爻 賰賱丕賲丕 賲亘賳賷丕 毓賱賶 丨賯賷賯丞 賱睾賵賷丞貙 賵 賴賵 賷卮丕亘賴 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賱爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕乇賷丞 丕賱賲賳丿孬乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇... 廿賳 亘賳賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賯丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 兀賷 賲賮賴賵賲貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 賲賵賯毓 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賵 毓丿賲 丕賲鬲賱丕賰賴賲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 賵 丕賱鬲爻賲賷丞... 賵 賲賳 賷賲賱賰 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 丕賱賯賵丞 賴賵 賲賳 賷毓亘乇 賵 賷賮乇囟 鬲毓丕亘賷乇賴... 丕賱賱睾丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賯胤 賲丐孬乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕 亘賱 兀賷囟丕 賲鬲兀孬乇丞 亘賴賲... 賵 賴賲 丕賱匕賷賳 賷卅丿賵賴丕 兀賵 賷丨賷賵賴丕... 賱匕賱賰 鬲噩丿 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賲夭丿賴乇丞 賵 睾賳賷丞 亘丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賲噩乇丿丞 賵 廿胤賱丕賯 丕賱丕氐胤賱丕丨丕鬲 丨賷賳 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 賲夭丿賴乇丞... 賵 禺賮鬲鬲 亘禺賮賵鬲 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕... 賵 廿賳賲丕 鬲鬲賲丕賷夭 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 兀賷囟丕 亘賲丿賶 禺丿賲丞 兀亘賳丕卅賴丕 賱賴丕 賵 鬲丿賵賷賳賴丕 賵 鬲賳賵毓 丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘賴丕... 賮賲孬賱丕 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱卮賮賵賷丞 鬲亘丿賵 兀囟毓賮 賵 兀賰孬乇 毓乇囟丞 賱賱丕賳丿孬丕乇 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲丿賵賳丞 賱噩乇賷丕賳 丕賱賳爻賷丕賳 毓賱賶 賲丕 賱賲 賷爻鬲禺丿賲 賲賳賴丕 賲賳 丿賵賳 賯乇胤丕爻 賷丨賮馗賴丕... 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳胤賯 亘賴丕 兀賮乇丕丿 賯賱丞 賮賷 賯亘賷賱丞 賲丕 兀賯賱 孬乇丕亍 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳胤賯 亘賴丕 丕賱賲賱丕賷賷賳貙 賵 匕賱賰 賱兀賳 丕賱賰孬乇丞 鬲孬乇賷 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱賯賱丞 鬲毓賲丿 賱賱丕禺鬲夭丕賱...賴
廿賳 丕賱賱賴 廿賳賲丕 兀賳夭賱 丕賱賯乇丌賳 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞... 賵 兀賰丿 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 亘賯賵賱賴 {賵賴匕丕 賱爻丕賳 毓乇亘賷 賲亘賷賳} 賵 丕賱廿亘丕賳丞 賴賷 丕賱廿賮氐丕丨... 賮丕賱賱賴 賯丿 兀乇丕丿 賱賴匕賴 丕賱賱睾丞 亘丕賱匕丕鬲 兀賳 鬲毓亘乇 毓賳 賰賱丕賲賴 賵 賵爻賲賴丕 亘丕賱廿賮氐丕丨... 賵 兀乇丕丿 賱賲賳 丕禺鬲丕乇 賮賴賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賯乇丌賳 賵 丿賷賳賴 兀賳 賷鬲毓賱賲 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞貙 賵 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賷賰爻亘 亘毓囟 丕賱丕氐胤賱丕丨丕鬲 賵 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賰賲丕 兀賳夭賱鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯乇丌賳... 賵 賱賰賳 丨鬲賶 賳毓乇賮 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱賲夭丕賷丕 賮賷 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮鬲乇賯 亘賴丕 毓賳 睾賷乇賴丕 賮賷 賲丕 鬲亘賷賳賴 兀賷 鬲賮氐丨 毓賳賴貙 賵 賲丕 賴賷 夭賵丕賷丕 丕賱賳馗乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲胤賱亘 賲賳 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕 丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 亘賴丕 夭賷丕丿丞 賲賯丕乇賳丞 賲毓 睾賷乇賴丕貙 賮賱丕 亘丿 賲賳 丿乇丕爻丕鬲 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘賷賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶... 賵 賴匕丕 賮乇毓 賲毓乇賮賷 賲賴賲 賱鬲亘丨孬 賮賷賴 丕賱兀噩賷丕賱 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱丌鬲賷丞貙 廿賳 禺乇噩賳丕 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 丕賱賲賮氐賱賷丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 兀丨賷丕亍 賲丨賷賷賳 賰賲丕 兀爻兀賱 丕賱賱賴貙 賵 賱賲 賳賮賳 賳丨賳 丕賱毓乇亘 噩賲賷毓丕 賲毓 賱睾鬲賳丕貙 賰賲丕 賷購賭賰丕丿 賱賳丕...賴
廿賳賲丕 賴賵 賰鬲丕亘 賱匕賷匕 賵 毓噩賷亘貙 兀賳氐丨 亘賴 賰賱 賲丨亘 賱賱睾丞... 賵 兀卮鬲賴賷 賱賵 兀賯乇兀 賰鬲亘丕 兀禺乇賶 丨賵賱 賳賮爻 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓...賴
爻賱賲賶
17 卮亘丕胤
2016
Read
January 2, 2023I added this book to my shelves on 14 April 2020 and began to read it same day, it is on an Export file. It and the review has since disappeared from my shelves? How could this happen? How many times has this happened, or the book has turned up as a Kindle or audio when i added the hardback? How many times do I find that the review has disappeared or the whole review has been hidden from everyone except my friends? Bugs? Bad librarianship combining and deleting? Censorship by any other name by 欧宝娱乐 Support? I have no idea.
But I'm pissed off because I read a good review of this book today and pointed them towards which I thinks makes a better case, and then I find this book has disappeared... What an effing joke.
But I'm pissed off because I read a good review of this book today and pointed them towards which I thinks makes a better case, and then I find this book has disappeared... What an effing joke.
September 7, 2015
BLURB
A masterpiece of linguistics scholarship, at once erudite and entertaining, confronts the thorny question of how-and whether-culture shapes language and language, culture.
Linguistics has long shied away from claiming any link between a language and the culture of its speakers: too much simplistic (even bigoted) chatter about the romance of Italian and the goose-stepping orderliness of German has made serious thinkers wary of the entire subject. But now, acclaimed linguist Guy Deutscher has dared to reopen the issue. Can culture influence language-and vice versa? Can different languages lead their speakers to different thoughts? Could our experience of the world depend on whether our language has a word for "blue"?
Challenging the consensus that the fundaments of language are hard-wired in our genes and thus universal, Deutscher argues that the answer to all these questions is-yes. In thrilling fashion, he takes us from Homer to Darwin, from Yale to the Amazon, from how to name the rainbow to why Russian water-a "she"-becomes a "he" once you dip a tea bag into her, demonstrating that language does in fact reflect culture in ways that are anything but trivial. Audacious, delightful, and field-changing, Through the Language Glass is a classic of intellectual discovery.
COMMENTS
This book must be read in context of the global languages. There are more than seven thousand languages spoken in the world, of which one hundred and six languages have been committed to writing, and only seventy-eight have a literature of their own. Standard written English has at least one and a half million words, with past and present meanings of the words known because they have been recorded in writing, the average oral dialect, especially in African countries, has only a few thousand words with no means of knowing possible previous meanings of those words.
The different cultural needs of these three thousand plus languages can explain why some have many words for one object, and others simply do not have a need for a thesaurus of possibilities which can explain the intention or meaning.
However, in the 1800s it was this phenomenon that baffled the intellectuals. What people see, and what they report, is two very different things. Add evolution to it, and the scientists had their research cut out for them. All research, whether it was through philology or anthropology, was based on western civilization as the control/reference group - or yardstick, if you will. In today's world, this notion has largely been modified to allow scientists a more open-minded and respectful approach to the world and its people. Thank goodness for that!
This book starts out with a highly interesting chapter on color in the context of language. I got so excited, I wanted to quote the entire chapter in the review! Of course I saved you this ordeal !
:-)
鈥淭here are four tongues worthy of the world鈥檚 use,鈥� says the Talmud: 鈥淕reek for song, Latin for war, Syriac for lamentation, and Hebrew for ordinary speech.鈥� Other authorities have been no less decided in their judgment on what different languages are good for. The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, king of Spain, archduke of Austria, and master of several European tongues, professed to speaking 鈥淪panish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse.鈥�The debate around color was set off by Right Honorable William Ewart Gladstone who published his Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age in London, March, 1858. Seventeen hundred pages covering three volumes, with a range of topics, from the geography of the Odyssey to Homer's sense of beauty; from the position of women in Homeric society, to the moral character of Helen. Tucked away in the last volume was the curious and seemingly marginal theme of "Homer's perception and use of color."
"European languages pinched their verbal philosophical tool kit from Latin, which in turn lifted it wholesale from Greek.
Gladstone's theories and studies, as discussed in this book, had me curious enough to get my copy of Homer out and add it to the re-read list. This time around it will get a lot more attention than thirty years ago in school, that's for sure.
" Gladstone's conundrum will launch a thousand ships of learning, have a profound effect on the development of at least three academic disciplines, and trigger a war over the control of language between nature and culture that after 150 years shows not sign of abating."
Gladstone got the intellectuals shocked, stupefied and then rallying when he finally declared that ancient populations were colorblind! That was his conclusion after meticulously discussing the absence of color, or limited knowledge there of, in Homer's poems.
You can either read the book yourself, or indulge in this spoiler to convince you to read it, in case you hesitate! The debate set off numerous scientific research project all over the world to determine why color did not have a presence in ancient literature, including the Bible.
I found this book entertaining and highly informative, with an academic flair to it. The research is impressive.
So many languages are disappearing from the world's radar, due to lack of development. Languages can only develop when a need for new words arises. Academic/ intellectual, development is mostly the starting point for new words and terminology to service a language in a local community, especially when westernization of local cultures is concerned. An ignorance of ancient old traditions within non-western societies lead to an attitude of superiority over these misunderstood, and highly developed cultures. The printed word also inspires the development of a language.
The author, Guy Deutscher, touches lightly on these issues, but provide a wealth of information in understanding these differences and how far we have come in understanding each other's worlds of words. He discusses how our mother tongue can affect how we think and how we perceive our world. He does not indulge in 'groundless twaddle' of any kind.
So by the way, Latin is not only the basis of many European languages. It is also, surprisingly, the secret ingredient in many African languages. A less-known wonder of my continent. You only discover it when you read books about the history of languages, although this one did not mention it.
I loved this book. It has enriched my world considerably. Confession: in my own language I have no problem expressing myself exactly how I want, of course, but in another language, I become a 'clueless primitive', battling a thesaurus of possibilities.
So be it.
This book is obviously recommended to the philologist-buffs among us! But for language lovers, without the academic itch, like me, it is a pleasure to read as well. The author was true to his promise indeed!
October 3, 2010
The first foreign language I learned to complete fluency was German - after five years of high school German I spent a year at a German boys' boarding school. At the end of that year I was completely fluent, but noticed an odd phenomenon, that I felt like a slightly different person when I spoke German than when speaking English. Since then I've also learned Spanish to a high degree of fluency, and the same observation holds. In both cases, the main difference that I perceive has to do with humor, and the way the language I'm speaking affects my sense of humor. So I've always been interested in the extent to which language affects thought. The notion that it does is what linguists refer to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Belief in Sapir-Whorf reached its peak in the first half of the 20th century, but since then the notion that language affects cognition has been discredited by almost all mainstream linguists.
In "Through the Language Glass" Guy Deutscher mounts a careful, very limited defence of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He considers three major areas - the link between language and color perception, how different languages deal with spatial orientation, and the phenomenon of differences in noun genders across different languages. His examination of the link between language and color perception is extensive and thought-provoking - he traces the development of linguistic theory on color perception from British prime minister Gladstone's commentary on the relative paucity of color terms in Homer's work, through the Berlin-Kay model (stating essentially that languages all tend to split up the color spectrum in similar ways) through very recent experiments suggesting that the existence of a particular color distinction in a language (e.g. the existence of separate terms in Russian for light and dark blue) affects the brain's ability to perceive that distinction. Deutscher's account of the evolution of linguistic theory about color perception is a tour de force of scientific writing for a general audience - it is both crystal clear and a pleasure to read.
Two factors contributed to my eventual disappointment with this book. The first is that, even after Deutscher's careful, eloquent, persuasive analysis, one's final reaction has to be a regretful "So what?" In the end, it all seems to amount to little of practical importance.
The second disappointment pertained only to the experience of reading this book on an Amazon Kindle. Reference is made throughout to a "color insert" which evidently contained several color wheels as well as up to a dozen color illustrations. This feature was completely absent from the Kindle edition, which had a severe adverse effect on the overall experience of reading this book. Obviously, this point is relevant only if you are contemplating reading the Kindle version - DON'T!
In "Through the Language Glass" Guy Deutscher mounts a careful, very limited defence of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He considers three major areas - the link between language and color perception, how different languages deal with spatial orientation, and the phenomenon of differences in noun genders across different languages. His examination of the link between language and color perception is extensive and thought-provoking - he traces the development of linguistic theory on color perception from British prime minister Gladstone's commentary on the relative paucity of color terms in Homer's work, through the Berlin-Kay model (stating essentially that languages all tend to split up the color spectrum in similar ways) through very recent experiments suggesting that the existence of a particular color distinction in a language (e.g. the existence of separate terms in Russian for light and dark blue) affects the brain's ability to perceive that distinction. Deutscher's account of the evolution of linguistic theory about color perception is a tour de force of scientific writing for a general audience - it is both crystal clear and a pleasure to read.
Two factors contributed to my eventual disappointment with this book. The first is that, even after Deutscher's careful, eloquent, persuasive analysis, one's final reaction has to be a regretful "So what?" In the end, it all seems to amount to little of practical importance.
The second disappointment pertained only to the experience of reading this book on an Amazon Kindle. Reference is made throughout to a "color insert" which evidently contained several color wheels as well as up to a dozen color illustrations. This feature was completely absent from the Kindle edition, which had a severe adverse effect on the overall experience of reading this book. Obviously, this point is relevant only if you are contemplating reading the Kindle version - DON'T!
May 23, 2014
--from the BrainyQuote Facebook page
Nature or nurture?
In the mid-19th century, William Gladstone, eminent British statesman and, in view of how we think of politicians nowadays, improbable source of scientific erudition, noted through his Homeric studies that the ancients didn't see color as we do. Wine-dark sea! And not only that, but violet sea, violet wool on sheep, and violet iron. And green--肠丑濒么谤辞蝉--for yes, sprouts--but twigs? Cyclops' club? Honey?
Poetic license, scoffed his naysayers, but the patterns turned out to be too consistent for that. He was on to something. But what? Were the ancients color-blind? Working just before the Darwinian revolution, Gladstone thought--everyone did--that acquired traits were handed down. As in, the giraffe stretches its neck reaching for the choicest foliage, ergo its children have longer necks. Gladstone thought that only over the last millennium had our literal eye for color developed to its lofty modern level.
It seems ancient texts from other cultures likewise vary from the colors we see. The next improbable thinker was philologist Lazarus Geiger, an Orthodox Jew whose 1867 presentation to the Assembly of German Naturalists and Physicians focused on blue and yellow as universally late-developing color concepts and on red as the first (after black and white). He was also the first to discriminate between what we say and what we see. But influenced by the new Darwinian science, he thought anatomical evolution of the eye accounted for the facts. Although clues to the contrary were cropping up, this savant died mid-career so wasn't around to pursue them.
With emerging anthropological studies, it was only natural for Western European man (that yardstick by which all humanity is to be judged, right?) to be deemed the pinnacle of evolution, while newly discovered and studied "primitive races" had yet to reach our level. Ah, evolution, and, oh, the race science of the late 19th and early 20th century!
With the crashing and burning of the biological approach and the triumph of culture, such interpretations fell from grace. Anything that smacked of the notion that "savages" were inferior to "civilized people" was viewed with distaste and, in fact, forgotten. For example, "(i)n America, it was now being explicitly proclaimed as a tenet of anthropological science that culture was the only admissible factor in explaining mental differences between ethnic groups" (p. 81). So, regarding color, the powers-that-were said that how a culture "chose" to speak of color was entirely arbitrary.
But what about the discoveries of a universal order in the emergence of color names? Along came a 1969 rediscovery of what had been forgotten. Once again the pendulum swings and upsets the applecart.
When the dust has settled it seems that cultures do have freedom in naming divisions of the color spectrum--within constraints. The anatomy of the eye isn't the issue, but rather the importance of color to us, which accompanies our ability to separate colors from their objects, and that accelerates when we start to use dyes and paints. We find names for what we find it important to talk about. First comes red, the color of blood, and always the first color named. Next, green and yellow--what's fresh? And what's ripe? Blue comes last.
Biology vs. culture.
It always seems that the way we do things is only right and "natural." Only by widening our horizons can we glimpse that our habits are just that--habits, not nature; one way but not universal. Color is the first ground the author tills to make us see that. At the end of the book he has included an appendix on color vision. Did you know that only primates developed trichromatic vision?
"(W)ith only a little exaggeration, one could say our trichromatic color vision is a device invented by certain fruiting trees in order to propagate themselves." In particular, it seems that our trichromatic color vision evolved together with a certain class of tropical trees that bear fruit too large to be taken by birds and that are yellow or orange when ripe. The tree offers a color signal that is visible to the monkey against the masking foliage of the forests, and in return the monkey either spits out the undamaged seed at a distance or defecates it together with fertilizer. In short, monkeys are to colored fruit what bees are to flowers. (p. 247)
That'll put us in our place!
The author's overall thesis is that language does affect how we see the world. In the bad old days of perceived Western European biological superiority, it was commonly believed that various languages--usually the observer's own--permitted the most sublime expression, where as more limited (read, primitive) languages--those of others--constrained what could be said and, worse, what could be thought. Subsequently it became clear that whatever the idiosyncrasies of particular languages, people could understand and could express various concepts. So, again, it fell out of favor to think that languages affect how their speakers experience the world. The prevalent view these days is that there is no such cultural effect, i.e., no such differences between cultures. The author mines two other areas in addition to color to show that our native tongue does "color" our view of the world: directionality and gender.
Although we know the cardinal directions and can give directions in those terms, we think it only natural that we usually speak with ourselves as the reference point, as when we say "left" and "right," or "in front of" or "behind" me. Well, languages have been discovered in which people don't do that; they think entirely in terms of "east," "west," "north," and "south." Although that seems "unnatural," even impossible to us, they do it with ease. In fact, by practicing it as they learn to speak, they "install" that way of thinking just as readily as we do our way of thinking of directionality. In 's terms, it becomes part of their "fast" (intuitive) thinking that they do "naturally" without even having to think about it.
In the above Family Circus comic from May 21, 2014, the little girl has caught on to using herself as a reference point but apparently not to our culture's excluding of the cardinal directions.
The other linguistic area into which the author delves is gender. Some languages make us express whether things are "feminine" or "masculine." But gender originally meant "type" and not "sex." There are languages in which "gender" depends on animacy (animate vs. inanimate) instead of sex, and there are languages that have more than two genders, for example humans, size, collectives, liquids, etc.!
The upshot of how languages affect our experience is contained in the following:
SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that any language forbids its speakers to think anything, we must look in an entirely different direction to discover how our mother tongue really does shape our experience of the world. Some 50 years ago, the renowned linguist Roman Jakobson pointed out a crucial fact about differences between languages in a pithy maxim: 鈥淟anguages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.鈥� This maxim offers us the key to unlocking the real force of the mother tongue: if different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about.
The above quotation comes from in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. Ever since I read that article, I've wanted to read this book. Then, some time ago, I spotted the hardback remaindered in Daedalus, and now I'm happy that I have read it!
This author, like the psychologist Daniel Kahneman with whose work I'm enamoured, offers us a chance to get outside our own heads. That's just about the most fantastic thing we can do. I have now (applause, please) had a half-hour (don't laugh) introduction to Kant's thinking. I have a glimmer that Kant was speaking of the a priori structures of our thought, which we cannot get out of and which govern all that we experience. Today's cognitive scientists, analogously, point to what our thinking is evolutionarily programmed with and what gets programmed in so deeply through overlearning and habit that it may as well be innate. And yet, and yet--sometimes we can get a glimpse over the walls, into what another person sees and thinks!
This author, Guy Deutscher, is somewhat self-deprecating. He is overly modest about what we can learn from psychological experimentation, believing that only when we can watch as our brains work will we really "know." He sometimes does not express the full import of what it means to see. Consequently his conclusions can seem underwhelming, as per :
Of these three examples, only the first felt significant. The ability to know which way is north at all times, even in the dark, is an extraordinary skill that has useful applications. The other two examples showed, if anything, that language barely has an effect on perception since the experiments seemed overly contrived and the results slight.
What has happened that the book's significance doesn't come through as it should? Perhaps the meandering of the narrative throws the reader off the track--if the reader doesn't realize the author is like a detective pursuing his leads historically. But I think the main culprit is that the author downplays his findings. Look at all the past figures he enumerates who drew erroneous conclusions! Deutscher especially doesn't want to be like the mid-20th century linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf whose name is mud today. He made a lot of radical and since-disproved claims about what limitations various languages impose on their speakers. So Deutscher says that each alleged impact of language must be individually demonstrated. He discounts the role of inference, and yet I think that in science deduction and induction work together.
Deutscher, being overly hesitant about the implications of his findings, would never have used the picture I have added at the first of this review. He would never say, as Daniel Kahneman does in Thinking, Fast and Slow (about the impact of various subliminal experiences on behavior):
The idea you should focus on, however, is that disbelief is not an option. The results are not made up, nor are they statistical flukes. You have no choice but to accept that the major conclusion of these studies are true. More important, you must accept that they are true about you.... You do not believe that these results apply to you because they correspond to nothing in your subjective experience. But your subjective experience consists largely of the story that your System 2 tells itself about what is going on. Priming phenomena arise in System 1, and you have no conscious access to them.
Ah, well. Deutscher is being modest and observing scientific caution, for which the casual reader may not be prepared, and I think maybe he is underestimating what can be learned from psychological as opposed to neuroanatomical findings. I tend to see his results, though, in the light of many other cognitive findings about the impact of our "programming," so I'm prepared to be more impressed.
One other point: Deutscher's big point is that culture, via language, is impacting us--culture, as opposed to nature. I'm not quite sure the distinction between nature and nurture is as clear as he makes it. Some evolutionary scientists think nowadays that biological evolution and culture interact. It used to be believed we humans haven't biologically evolved in 50,000 years. But many scientists today think evolution is still going on. Some change is mediated through culture, and then some individuals are better able to adapt to that cultural change and get their genes into the next generation. For example, the ability to benefit from dairy products. Culturally, some northern Europeans found dairy products to be a major food source in areas where the climate limited other food sources. So those who had a mutation that allowed them to digest it survived and out-bred the lactose intolerant. That's my rather simplistic rendition of how nature could interact with nurture, an example Jonathan Haidt uses in The Righteous Mind.
September 28, 2011
This is what I call Having a Really Good Time. Yes, I know, but then some people go ice-fishing. For fun. So, if (like me) you are a language geek and have a fairly quiet life, then this might be your idea of a high old time too. Because Guy Deutscher manages that most demanding combination. On one hand, he is an academic linguist, which you might assume would mean he uses phrases like pro-drop parameter or boundary conditions or declarative sentences or funny words like morpheme or evidentiality (haha). But on the other hand his writing style is playful, lucid, engaging and irresistibly amusing. Yes, it's true, there is such a thing as an entertaining linguist.
Deutscher takes up the slightly disreputable idea that language may have some influence on our thought patterns. This is the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater when Benjamin Lee Whorf's notion that language determines our picture of reality was rejected as fanciful. Whorf made some rather presumptuous assumptions, claiming that language constrained our minds and prevented us from being able to understand certain concepts. If a language has no future tense, for example, then its speakers would not have any grasp of the notion of future time. Laughable really, but it was a theory that had currency for years. Once that theory had crashed, it became unfashionable to even think about the possibility that thought patterns might be influenced by language, but Deutscher examines how different languages force their speakers to pay attention to certain aspects of reality. One of the most impressive examples is the Australian Aboriginal language Guugu Yimithirr, from north Queensland. Guugu Yimithirr does not use words like 鈥渓eft鈥� or 鈥渞ight,鈥� 鈥渋n front of鈥� or 鈥渂ehind,鈥� to describe the position of objects. Whenever we would use the egocentric system, the Guugu Yimithirr rely on cardinal directions. If they want you to move over on the car seat to make room, they鈥檒l say 鈥渕ove a bit to the east.鈥� To tell you where exactly they left something in your house, they鈥檒l say, 鈥淚 left it on the southern edge of the western table.鈥� Or they would warn you to 鈥渓ook out for that big ant just north of your foot.鈥� Even when shown a film on television, they gave descriptions of it based on the orientation of the screen. If the television was facing north, and a man on the screen was approaching, they said that he was 鈥渃oming northward.鈥� As one might expect, this necessity of specifying geographic directions all of the time means that the speakers of this language (and there are others in the world that are similar) have to develop an unfailing sense of orientation. Which of course they do, being able to 'feel' where north and south, east and west are in the same way as we feel where behind is. Actually, it saves the trouble you get with rotation when you use the egocentric right and left - no more would you need to ask "your left or mine?" East is east.
Deutscher is cautious about leaping to any other conclusion than saying that language can develop a certain habit of mind, and speculating that there may be correlated influences on such things as memory or learning. But further than that he will not go, as the evidence is just not available yet, despite some fantastically ingenious testing methods to explore cognitive faculties. I do find that ingenuity amazing, but Deutscher points out in his epilogue that the ingenuity required is a sign of weakness: it is needed because we know so little about how the brain works. "Were we not profoundly ignorant, we would not need to rely on roundabout methods of gleaning information from measures such as reaction speed to various contrived tasks." True enough, I suppose. But I'm impressed none the less.
Deutscher takes up the slightly disreputable idea that language may have some influence on our thought patterns. This is the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater when Benjamin Lee Whorf's notion that language determines our picture of reality was rejected as fanciful. Whorf made some rather presumptuous assumptions, claiming that language constrained our minds and prevented us from being able to understand certain concepts. If a language has no future tense, for example, then its speakers would not have any grasp of the notion of future time. Laughable really, but it was a theory that had currency for years. Once that theory had crashed, it became unfashionable to even think about the possibility that thought patterns might be influenced by language, but Deutscher examines how different languages force their speakers to pay attention to certain aspects of reality. One of the most impressive examples is the Australian Aboriginal language Guugu Yimithirr, from north Queensland. Guugu Yimithirr does not use words like 鈥渓eft鈥� or 鈥渞ight,鈥� 鈥渋n front of鈥� or 鈥渂ehind,鈥� to describe the position of objects. Whenever we would use the egocentric system, the Guugu Yimithirr rely on cardinal directions. If they want you to move over on the car seat to make room, they鈥檒l say 鈥渕ove a bit to the east.鈥� To tell you where exactly they left something in your house, they鈥檒l say, 鈥淚 left it on the southern edge of the western table.鈥� Or they would warn you to 鈥渓ook out for that big ant just north of your foot.鈥� Even when shown a film on television, they gave descriptions of it based on the orientation of the screen. If the television was facing north, and a man on the screen was approaching, they said that he was 鈥渃oming northward.鈥� As one might expect, this necessity of specifying geographic directions all of the time means that the speakers of this language (and there are others in the world that are similar) have to develop an unfailing sense of orientation. Which of course they do, being able to 'feel' where north and south, east and west are in the same way as we feel where behind is. Actually, it saves the trouble you get with rotation when you use the egocentric right and left - no more would you need to ask "your left or mine?" East is east.
Deutscher is cautious about leaping to any other conclusion than saying that language can develop a certain habit of mind, and speculating that there may be correlated influences on such things as memory or learning. But further than that he will not go, as the evidence is just not available yet, despite some fantastically ingenious testing methods to explore cognitive faculties. I do find that ingenuity amazing, but Deutscher points out in his epilogue that the ingenuity required is a sign of weakness: it is needed because we know so little about how the brain works. "Were we not profoundly ignorant, we would not need to rely on roundabout methods of gleaning information from measures such as reaction speed to various contrived tasks." True enough, I suppose. But I'm impressed none the less.
October 14, 2016
賮廿賳 鬲賰乇賲鬲賲"
賷丕 兀賷賴丕 丕賱賯乇丕亍 丕賱賱丕丨賯賵賳 亘賳丕 兀賳 鬲賳馗乇賵丕 賱賱兀爻賮賱 亘丕鬲噩丕賴賳丕 賲賳 賯賲丞 卮賲賵禺賰賲貙
賮鬲匕賰乇賵丕 兀賳賰賲 賯丿 賵氐賱鬲賲 廿賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱賯賲丞 亘丕賱鬲爻賱賯 毓賱賶 馗賴賵乇 賲噩賴賵丿丕鬲賳丕"
賴賰匕丕 賷賳賴賷 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱毓馗賷賲 噩丿賸丕 亘賰賱 鬲賵丕囟毓貙
賰鬲亘鬲 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 鬲賱禺氐 賲丕 兀賵乇丿賴 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丕胤
丕賱鬲賷 兀乇丕賴丕 賲賴賲丞 賵爻兀賳賯賱賴丕 賴賳丕 賵毓匕乇賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱毓丕賲賷丞
*
賱賵 丕賱賱睾丞 賲乇丌丞 賱賱毓賯賱 賴賱 賴鬲購馗賴乇 賱賳丕 孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱賲鬲賰賱賲 兀賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞責 賷毓賳賷 賲賷賳 亘賷卮賰賱 丕賱賱睾丞責 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵賱丕 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞責
賲賳 丕賱亘丿賷賴賷 兀賳 賱睾丞 賰賱 賵丕丨丿 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘孬賯丕賮鬲賴 亘丨賷孬 兀賳賴 賱賵 丕鬲賵賱丿 賮賷 賲賰丕賳 鬲丕賳賷 賰丕賳 賴賷鬲賰賱賲 賱睾丞 鬲丕賳賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 亘鬲乇爻賲 丨丿賵丿 賱賱睾丞貙 賲孬賱丕 賱賵 賱賯賷賳丕 賱賮馗 賵丕丨丿 賮賷 兀賷 賱睾丞 亘賷毓亘乇 毓賳 (丕賱胤賷賵乇 丕賱亘賷囟丕亍 賵賲毓丕賴丕 賰賱 丕賱賯胤胤) = 兀馗賳 廿賳賳丕 賴賳賵氐賮 丕賱賱睾丞 丿賷 亘丕賱噩賳賵賳 賵廿賳 丕賱鬲賯爻賷賲 丿賴 睾賷乇 賲賳胤賯賷 毓卮丕賳 賷噩賲毓 丕賱胤賷賵乇 賵丕賱賯胤胤 賮賷 賱賮馗 賵丕丨丿貙 賮丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賴賳丕 賴賷 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱丞 毓賳 丕賱鬲賯爻賷賲 丿賴貙 賵毓丿賲 丕賱爻賲丕丨 亘噩賲毓 兀卮賷丕亍 毓卮賵丕卅賷丞 鬲丨鬲 賲爻賲賶 賵丕丨丿 禺氐賵氐賸丕 賮賷 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 丕賱賲賱賲賵爻丞.
賮賷 丕賱賲毓丕賳賷 丕賱鬲噩乇賷丿賷丞 夭賷 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱乇賵丨貙 賴賳賱丕賯賷 廿賳 賰賱 賲噩鬲賲毓 亘賷鬲賵爻毓 賮賷 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賲乇鬲亘胤 亘賷賴 兀賰鬲乇 賵亘賷囟毓 賱賴 兀爻賲丕亍 賲賱賴丕卮 賲乇丕丿賮丕鬲 賮賷 賱睾丞 鬲丕賳賷丞 . . 亘乇鬲乇丕賳丿 乇丕爻賱 賮賷 賲賯丕賱 賱賴 賰鬲亘賴 賮賷 丕禺鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲賳丨丞 丕賱鬲兀賴賷賱賷丞 賱賱噩丕賲毓丞貙 亘賷賳丕賯卮 賮賷 賲賯賵賱丞 丕賲乇爻賵賳: "賳爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 毓賱賶 乇賵丨 丕賱卮毓亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賳馗乇 賮賷 賱睾鬲賴" . . 賮亘賷賯賵賱 乇丕爻賱: 廿賳賴 賯丿 賷賲賰賳賳丕 匕賱賰 賮賲孬賱丕 賰賱賲丞 乇賵丨 賮賷 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞
l'esprit
賲毓亘賾乇丞 毓賳 賲毓丕賳賷 賲卮 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賵亘匕賱賰 賳氐賱 賱丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 (賯丿 鬲丐賷丿賴 丕賱賲賱丕丨馗丞) 廿賳 丕賱卮毓亘 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 賱丿賷賴 乇賵丨丕賳賷丞 兀賰亘乇 賲賳 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷.
賳賮爻 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賱賵 噩乇亘賳丕 賳爻鬲禺丿賲 賲毓噩賲 孬賳丕卅賷 賱丕爻鬲禺乇丕噩 賱賮馗 賲毓丕丿賱 賱賰賱賲丞 . .
mind
賲賳 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞
賴賳賱丕賯賷 兀賱賮丕馗 賰鬲賷乇 亘鬲丨丕賵賱 鬲賯鬲乇亘 賲賳 丕賱賲毓丕賳賷 丕賱賲噩賲賾毓丞 賮賷 賰賱賲丞 毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞.
賲賲賰賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 鬲鬲賳丕夭賱 賱賱孬賯丕賮丞 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 丕賱賱睾丞 丨鬲賶 賮賷 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 丕賱賲丨爻賵爻丞 丕賱賱賷 丕賱賲賮乇賵囟 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賴賷 丕賱賱賷 亘鬲乇爻賲 丨丿賵丿賴丕貙 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 廿賳 兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱廿卮丕乇丞 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱丨爻 賲亘丕卮乇丞貙 廿賱丕 廿賳 賲賲賰賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 鬲鬲丨賰賲 賮賷賴丕!
丕賱賳丕胤賯賷賳 亘丕賱鬲睾賱賵睾賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賮賱亘賷賳 亘賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵丕 3 兀賱賮丕馗 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賳丨賳 賭 we
賱賮馗 賱賭 兀賳丕 賵兀賳鬲 賮賯胤 . . 賵賱賮馗 賱賭 兀賳丕 賵兀賳鬲 賵卮禺氐 丌禺乇 . . 賵賱賮馗 賱賭 兀賳丕 賵卮禺氐 丌禺乇 睾賷乇賰貙 賵賲賲賰賳 賷囟丨賰賵丕 毓賱賷賳丕 賱賵 毓乇賮賵丕 廿賳 賮賷賴 賳丕爻 亘鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 賱賮馗 賵丕丨丿 賱賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱鬲賱丕鬲丞.
賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓亘乇賷丞 賲孬賱丕 賴賳丕賰 賱賮馗丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱賷丿 賵丕賱匕乇丕毓貙 毓賱賶 禺賱丕賮 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞貙 賵丿賴 亘賷爻亘亘 賲卮賰賱丞 賱賲鬲賰賱賲 丕賱毓亘乇賷丞 賱賲丕 賷噩賷賷 賷鬲毓賱賲 賱睾丞 亘鬲賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱丕鬲賳賷賳貙 賵賮賷 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱兀毓囟丕亍 賵丿賲噩賴丕 禺丕囟毓 賱賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱賱賷 亘鬲丨丿丿 賲爻賲賷丕鬲 賱賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丨爻亘 乇丐賷鬲賴丕.
賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賰賱賲丞 "噩爻乇" 賲匕賰乇貙 亘鬲賵丨賷 亘爻賲丕鬲 乇噩賵賱賷丞 賲孬賱 丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱賲鬲丕賳丞貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賰賱賲丞 噩爻乇 賲丐賳孬丞 賮兀賴賱賴丕 亘賷卮賵賮賵丕 丕賱噩爻乇 噩賲賷賱 賵賳丨賷賱貙 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 亘鬲毓丕賳賷 賮賷 鬲噩賳賷爻 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵丕賱噩賲丕丿 賵丕賱賳亘丕鬲 . . 鬲賳丕夭賱 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賱賱孬賯丕賮丞 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賲毓亘乇丞 毓賳 賲賮丕賴賷賲 丨爻賷賾丞 亘賷爻亘亘 賲卮丕賰賱 賰鬲賷乇 賵禺氐賵氐丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞!
*
賴賷 丕賱賳丕爻 丿賷 亘鬲卮賵賮 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 夭賷賳丕 賵賱丕 賱兀責!
賮賷 丕賱賳氐 丕賱鬲丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賭 19 賰丕賳鬲 賮賷 禺賳丕賯丞 賮賰乇賷丞 賵賱賷賱丞 賰亘賷乇丞 毓賳 乇丐賷丞 丕賱兀賯賵丕賲 丕賱爻丕亘賯賷賷賳 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳! . . 馗賴乇 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賰亘賷乇 廿賳 賮賷 丕賱兀夭賲賳丞 丕賱睾丕亘乇丞 丕賱賳丕爻 賲賰賳鬲卮 亘鬲卮賵賮 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 夭賷 賲丕 丕丨賳丕 卮丕賷賮賷賳賴丕 丿賱賵賯鬲賷!!
丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 亘丿兀 賲毓 -丕賱乇丕噩賱 丕賱亘乇賳爻 噩丿丕- 睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 賵賲噩賱丿丕鬲賴 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 "丿乇丕爻丞 賮賷 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 賵丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱賴賵賲賷乇賵爻賷" . . 睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 賳卮乇 賮賷 丿乇丕爻鬲賴 賮氐賱 氐睾賷乇 賰丿賴 禺丕氐 亘賭 賮賴賲 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴 賱賴丕貙 賵賰卮賮 毓賳 賲毓囟賱丞 鬲爻亘亘鬲 賮賷 賮鬲丨 賲噩丕賱 亘丨孬賷 賵丕爻毓 噩丿丕 . .
睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 亘卮噩丕毓丞 賷丨爻丿 毓賱賷賴丕 賯丕賱 廿賳 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯 賰丕賳 毓賳丿賴賲 賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 乇丐賷丞 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵賱禺氐 丨噩噩賴 賮賷 禺賲爻丞 賳賯丕胤 :
- 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 賰丕賳 亘賷爻鬲禺丿賲 賳賮爻 丕賱賰賱賲丞 賱賷賵氐賮 兀賱賵丕賳 丕丨賳丕 亘賳毓鬲亘乇賴丕 丕賱賳賴丕乇丿丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞貙 賮賲孬賱丕 丕賱亘丨乇 賲馗賱賲 賰丕賱賳锟斤拷賷匕 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱孬賷乇丕賳 鬲卮亘賴 丕賱賳亘賷匕 貙 賵亘賷賵氐賮 賳賮爻 丕賱卮賷亍 亘賵氐賮賷賳 賲禺鬲賱賮賷賳貙 賮亘賷爻鬲禺丿賲 丕爻賲 夭賴乇丞 丕賱亘賳賮爻噩 ioeis 賱賵氐賮 賱賵賳 丕賱亘丨乇 兀賷囟丕 -丕賱亘丨乇 丕賱亘賳賮爻噩賷貙 丕賱亘丨乇 丕賱兀乇噩賵丕賳賷- 賵賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱兀睾賳丕賲 賮賷 丕賱賰賴賮 賲睾胤丕丞 亘氐賵賮 亘賳賮爻噩賷!
- 賰賱賲丞 賰賱賵乇賵爻 賮賷 賲乇丕丨賱 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯賷丞 丕賱賲賯丿賲丞 鬲毓賳賷 丕賱兀禺囟乇貙 丕爻鬲禺丿賲賴丕 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 賱賵氐賮 丕賱毓爻賱 . . 丕賱毓爻賱 丕賱兀禺囟乇! 賵丕爻鬲禺丿賲賴丕 賱賵氐賮 丕賱賵噩賵賴 丕賱卮丕丨亘丞 賲賳 丕賱禺賵賮 賵睾賷乇賴.
- 賰賲丕賳 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳 囟毓賷賮 噩丿丕 兀賵 睾賷乇 賲賵噩賵丿貙 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丨亘賴 賱賱丨氐丕賳 賵丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴 賱賴 賮賷 卮毓乇賴 亘丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇 廿賱丕 廿賳賴 賳丕丿乇賸丕 賲丕 賷匕賰乇 賱賵賳賴 賮賷 賰賱 兀賵氐丕賮賴貙 賵丕賱爻賲丕亍 賲賱賷卅丞 亘丕賱賳噩賵賲 賵賰賱 丨丕噩丞 丨賱賵丞 廿賱丕 廿賳賴丕 賲卮 夭乇賯丕亍.
- 丕賱賱賵賳賷賳 丕賱兀亘賷囟 賵丕賱兀爻賵丿 賴賲丕 丕賱賲爻賷胤乇賷賳 毓賱賶 卮毓乇賴 亘氐賵乇丞 賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴丕 . . 兀賵氐丕賮 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 賱賰賱 卮賷亍 夭丕賴賷丞 噩丿丕 賵賲毓亘乇丞 廿賱丕 賮賷 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳.
賰賱丕賲 睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 賵囟毓 丕賱賳賯丕丿 賮賷 賲賵賯賮 氐毓亘貙 賵丨丕賵賱賵丕 賷禺乇噩賵丕 亘鬲亘乇賷乇丕鬲 賱賱禺賱賱 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱賱賷 丕馗賴乇賴 睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 賵賱賰賳賴賲 賮卮賱賵丕貙 禺氐賵氐賸丕 廿賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賰鬲賷乇 賷氐毓亘 鬲兀賵賷賱賴丕 賰賱賴丕 . . 賵賯丿賲 睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 鬲亘乇賷乇賴 亘丕夭丿賷丕丿 丨爻丕爻賷鬲賳丕 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵廿賳 丕賱毓囟賵 鬲賲 鬲丿乇賷亘賴 賮兀氐亘丨 亘賯丿乇丞 兀賰亘乇 賵鬲賲 鬲賵乇賷孬賴丕 賱賱兀噩賷丕賱 丕賱鬲丕賱賷丞!
賮賷 1867 賱丕夭丕乇賵爻 睾丕賷睾乇 兀賱賯賶 賲丨丕囟乇丞 毓賳 "廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賱丿賶 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賵鬲胤賵乇賴"貙 賰賱丕賲 睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 丕爻鬲賮夭 睾丕賷睾乇 廿賳賴 賷亘丨孬 賮賷 丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賱丿賶 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 . . 賮賷 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賴賳丿賷 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賮賷丿丕 丌賱丕賮 丕賱爻胤賵乇 亘鬲賵氐賮 丕賱爻賲丕亍 賵亘鬲鬲乇賳賲 亘噩賲丕賱賴丕 廿賱丕 廿賳賳丕 賲卮 賴賳毓乇賮 廿賳 丕賱爻賲丕亍 夭乇賯丕亍!貙 丕賱鬲賵乇丕丞 丕賱毓亘乇賷丞 亘噩賱丕賱丞 賯丿乇賴丕 禺丕賱賷丞 賲賳 賰賱賲丞 "兀夭乇賯" . . 賷匕賰乇 丕賱廿賳噩賷賱 丨氐丕賳賸丕 兀丨賲乇貙 賵賷禺亘乇 丕賱乇爻賵賱 兀乇賲賷丕 亘兀賳 丕賱賵噩賵賴 兀氐亘丨鬲 禺囟乇丕亍. 賴賳丕賰 丨賲丕賲丞 乇賷卮賴丕 亘賱賵賳 丕賱匕賴亘 丕賱兀禺囟乇!
亘卮賵賷丞 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵兀氐賵賱 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 賷亘賳賷 睾丕賷睾乇 鬲爻賱爻賱丕 夭賲賳賷丕 賱賳卮兀丞 丕賱廿丨爻丕爻 亘丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賱丿賶 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞貨 賮丕賱兀丨賲乇 孬賲 丕賱兀氐賮乇 賵丕賱兀禺囟乇 賵賮賷 丕賱兀禺賷乇 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賵丕賱亘賳賮爻噩賷! . . 賵丕賱兀睾乇亘 廿賳 鬲爻賱爻賱 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 賲鬲卮丕亘賴 賮賷 毓丿丞 孬賯丕賮丕鬲 賯丿賷賲丞.
胤乇丨 睾丕賷睾乇 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀賴賲 賮賷 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賵賴賵 賲丕 爻賷爻鬲賲乇 氐丿丕賴 賱毓賯賵丿 賯丕丿賲丞 毓賳 賲丕 鬲乇丕賴 丕賱毓賷賳 賵賲丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賱睾丞 兀賳 鬲毓亘乇 毓賳賴責
賮賷 1875 丨丿孬 鬲氐丕丿賲 亘丕賱爻賵賷丿 賱賯胤丕乇賷賳 鬲爻亘亘 賮賷 丕賱兀賴鬲賲丕賲 亘賲賵囟賵毓 乇丐賷丞 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳貙 丕賮鬲乇囟 丕賱胤亘賷亘 賴賵賱賲睾賵賳 廿賳 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賷 丕賱鬲氐丕丿賲 廿賳 丕賱爻丕卅賯 卮丕賮 丕賱廿卮丕乇丞 丕賱丨賲乇丕亍 亘丕賱賱賵賳 丕賱兀亘賷囟 賱兀賳賴 賲氐丕亘 亘毓賲賶 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳貙 賵毓賲賱賵丕 丨賲賱丞 賱丕禺鬲亘丕乇 毓賲丕賱 丕賱爻賰丞 丕賱丨丿賷丿 賮賷 乇丐賷鬲賴賲 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳貙 賵丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 亘賷賳 266 賵丕丨丿 毓賲賱賵丕 賱賴賲 丕賱丕禺鬲亘丕乇 胤賱毓 13 賵丕丨丿 賲氐丕亘 亘毓賲賶 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 亘賷賳賴賲 爻丕卅賯 賵賲丿賷乇 賲丨胤丞.
胤亘賷亘 毓賷賵賳 丕爻賲賴 賲丕睾賳爻 賰丕賳 賱賴 丕賱賮囟賱 賮賷 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 毓賳 乇丐賷丞 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵兀賳賴賲 賷乇賵丕 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 亘丕賴鬲丞 賵賱賷爻 賰賲丕 賳乇丕賴丕 丕賱丌賳 賵丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賲賯丿賲 賴賵 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱鬲胤賵乇賷 丕賱賱賷 賯丿賲賴 睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳 亘鬲丿乇賷亘 丕賱毓囟賵 賵鬲賵丕乇孬 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞 賵賯丿賲 賳馗乇賷丞 亘鬲乇鬲賷亘 乇丐賷丞 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵廿賳 乇丐賷鬲賴丕 賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇 廿賱丕 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賮賷丞 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賵賱丕賯鬲 賯亘賵賱 賰亘賷乇 賮賷 賵賯鬲賴丕 賱賲 賷鬲賵賮乇 賱睾賱丕丿爻鬲賵賳.
賲賰賳卮 賮賷賴 丨丕噩丞 鬲賮爻乇 乇丐賷丞 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳 亘丕賱氐賵乇丞 丕賱爻丕亘賯丞 廿賱丕 賲丕 胤乇丨賴 賲丕睾賳爻 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 廿賳 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賰丕賳鬲 亘鬲賵丕噩賴 賲卮丕賰賱 賵丿丕乇賵賷賳 兀賯乇 亘廿賳 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丿賴 賮賷賴 賲卮丕賰賱.
丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘鬲賵丕乇孬 丕賱爻賲丕鬲 丕賱賲賰鬲爻亘丞 賰丕賳 爻丕卅丿 毓丕賱賲賷賸丕 丨鬲賶 鬲賲丕賳賷賳丕鬲 丕賱賯乇賳 19 . . 賱丨丿 賲丕 丕賱兀丨賷丕卅賷 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷 賵丕賷夭賲丕賳 毓賲賱 鬲噩乇亘鬲賴 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞 亘賯胤毓 匕賷賵賱 800 賮兀乇 賱賭 18 噩賷賱 賵賱賲 賷賵賱丿 兀賷 噩賷賱 亘匕賷賵賱 賲亘鬲賵乇丞.
丕賱丨賱 賰丕賳 賮賷 丕賱鬲賵噩賴 賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賴賱 賲賲賰賳 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 鬲賰賵賳 賯丿乇鬲 鬲賲賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵賱賰賳 賮卮賱賵丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳賴丕 亘賱睾鬲賴賲責!
賴賱 丕賱禺賱賱 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賳賮爻賴丕責
賮賷 賵賯鬲賳丕 丕賱乇丕賴賳 亘賷鬲賯丕賱 賳亘賷匕 兀亘賷囟 乇睾賲 廿賳 賱賵賳賴 兀禺囟乇 賲氐賮乇貙 賵丕賱爻賳丕噩亘 丕賱丨賲乇丕亍 賴賷 亘賳賷丞 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵丕賱廿賷胤丕賱賷賷賳 亘賷賯賵賱賵丕 毓賱賶 氐賮丕乇 丕賱亘賷囟 (兀丨賲乇) . . 亘爻 卮賵賷丞 賰賱賲丕鬲 毓卮賵丕卅賷丞 賲卮 夭賷 丕賱禺賱賱 丕賱丿丕卅賲 賮賷 丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞!
賷亘賯賶 賲賮賷卮 睾賷乇 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賴賷 丕賱賱賷 賴鬲丨賱 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 . . 賮賷 1878 丨丿賷賯丞 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳 亘廿丨丿賶 囟賵丕丨賷 亘乇賱賷賳 丕爻鬲賯亘賱鬲 62 兀賱賮 卮禺氐 賵毓賱賲丕亍 兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丕 賵毓賱賲 丕賱兀毓乇丕賯 賵睾賷乇賴賲 毓卮丕賳 賷鬲賮乇噩賵丕 毓賱賶 30 卮禺氐 賲賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賵丕賱賳爻丕亍 賵丕賱乇噩丕賱 丕賱賳賵亘賷賷賳 賲賳 丕賱爻賵丿丕賳貙 賵鬲賲 廿禺囟丕毓賴賲 賱丕禺鬲亘丕乇 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳貙 賯亘賱 賴匕丕 丕賱丨丿孬 亘賮鬲乇丞 賳卮乇 亘丕爻鬲賷丕賳 賲賯丕賱 亘賷賮賷丿 亘廿賳 賴賳丕賰 卮毓賵亘 賲丕夭丕賱鬲 賱丕 鬲賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賵丕賱兀禺囟乇貙 賵兀賵賱 亘丨孬 賮毓賱賷 毓賱賶 卮毓賵亘 亘丿丕卅賷丞 賰丕賳 賲賳 賯亘賱 廿乇賳爻鬲 兀賱賲賰賵賷爻鬲 毓賳 爻賰丕賳 噩夭賷乇丞 鬲卮賵賰卮賷 亘卮乇賯 爻賷亘乇賷丕 . . 賵胤購賱亘 賲賳 囟亘丕胤 丕賱噩賷卮 亘毓賲賱 丕爻鬲亘賷丕賳丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱賴賳丿賷丞 . . 賵丕賱賲亘卮乇賷賳 賮賷 丕賱賲賳丕胤賯 丕賱賳丕卅賷丞 胤購賱亘 賲賳賴賲 兀賷囟賸丕 噩賲毓 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 毓賳 乇丐賷丞 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賱賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵丌賱丕賮 丕賱胤賱亘丕鬲 賱賱賯賳氐賱賷丕鬲 賵睾賷乇賴丕 賵丕賱賱賷賱丞 亘賯鬲 賰亘賷乇丞 噩丿丕.
丕賱賳賵亘賷賷賳 賲賰賳卮 毓賳丿賴賲 兀賷 賰賱賲丞 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱賱賵賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯貙 賵丕賱賴賳賵丿 賮賷 賵賱丕賷丞 兀賵乇賷睾賵賳 丕爻鬲禺丿賲賵丕 賱賮馗 賵丕丨丿 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 兀賰鬲乇 賲賳 賱賵賳貙 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱爻賵 賮賷 賵賱丕賷丞 丿丕賰賵鬲丕 丕爻鬲禺丿賲賵丕 賰賱賲丞 "鬲賵鬲賵" 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱賱賵賳賷賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賵丕賱兀禺囟乇!
丕賱賱賷 兀賳賴賶 丕賱噩丿賱 丿賴 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賰丕賳 乇賷賮乇夭 丕賱胤亘賷亘 丕賱賳賮爻賷 丕賱賲卮賴賵乇 亘毓賱丕噩賴 賱丌孬丕乇 丕賱丨乇賵亘 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱噩賳賵丿貙 賮賷 1898 賯丕賲 亘鬲賱亘賷丞 丿毓賵丞 賲賳 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丕 亘噩丕賲毓丞 賰丕賲亘乇賷丿噩 賱賱賯賷丕賲 亘丨賲賱丞 賱賲囟賷賯 丕賱鬲賵乇賷爻 亘賷賳 兀爻鬲乇丕賱賷丕 賵睾賷賳賷丕 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞貙 丕賱丨賲賱丞 賰丕賳 賴丿賮賴丕 廿賱賯丕亍 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賲丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 賱賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 . . 丕賳鬲賴夭 乇賷賮乇夭 丕賱賮乇氐丞 賱廿噩乇丕亍 丕禺鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 亘氐乇賷丞 丿賯賷賯丞 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賰丕賳 丕賱兀氐賱賷賷賳 乇睾亘丞 賲賳賴 賮賷 賮囟 匕賱賰 丕賱賳夭丕毓貙 禺賱丕賱 兀乇亘毓丞 卮賴賵乇 賯囟丕賴丕 乇賷賮乇夭 毓賱賶 噩夭賷乇丞 賲賵乇丕賷 亘賲囟賷賯 鬲賵乇賷爻貙 賳鬲丕卅噩賴 噩丕亍鬲 賲鬲賵丕賮賯丞 賱丨丿 賰亘賷乇 賲毓 賲丕 鬲賲 丕賱鬲賵氐賱 賱賴 賮賷 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 爻賳丞 丕賱爻丕亘賯丞 = 兀賵氐丕賮 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 毓賳丿 丕賱賯亘賷賱丞 睾賷乇 賲丨丿丿丞 賵賲亘賴賲丞 . . 兀賰孬乇 丕賱兀爻賲丕亍 亘鬲氐賮 丕賱賱賵賳 丕賱兀爻賵丿 賵丕賱兀亘賷囟 賵丕賱兀丨賲乇 (丕賱兀爻賵丿 = 睾賵賱賷睾賵賷 賲卮鬲賯丞 賲賳 丕賱丨亘丕乇貙 丕賱兀亘賷囟 = 賰丕賰賷賰丕賰賷賰貙 丕賱兀丨賲乇 = 賲丕賲丕賲丕賲丕賲 鬲毓賳賷 丕賱丿賲).
賵賳賮爻 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丿賷 亘鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 賱賵氐賮 兀賱賵丕賳 鬲丕賳賷丞貙 丕賱賵丕囟丨 廿賳 賱睾丞 丕賱爻賰丕賳 賰丕賳鬲 賲禺鬲賱丞 噩丿丕貙 丕爻鬲禺丿賲 乇賷賮乇夭 丕禺鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 兀賰孬乇 氐乇丕賲丞 賱賲毓乇賮丞 賯丿乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賲賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳貙 賵丕爻鬲禺丿賲 賳爻禺丞 賲鬲胤賵乇丞 賲賳 丕禺鬲亘丕乇 賴賵賱賲睾乇賳 賵賱賰賳 丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 廿賳賴賲 賰丕賳賵丕 亘賰丕賲賱 賯丿乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 丕賱賮乇賵賯 丕賱丿賯賷賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵丿乇噩丕鬲賴丕 賵賱賰賳 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賰丕賳鬲 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱丞!! 夭賷 丕賱賳賵亘賷賷賳 賮賷 亘乇賱賷賳 賱賲 賷賯丿乇賵丕 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵賱賰賳 毓賳丿 禺囟賵毓賴賲 賱丕禺鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賰丕賳賵丕 毓賱賶 賲賯丿乇丞 鬲丕賲丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳賴賲.
鬲噩乇亘丞 匕賴賳賷丞 亘爻賷胤丞 鬲賵囟丨 丿賵乇 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賲毓亘賾乇丞 毓賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳貙 賱賵 毓丕賱賲 賲賳 乇賵爻賷丕 賲孬賱丕 匕賴亘 廿賱賶 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賮賷 丕賱噩夭乇 丕賱卮賲丕賱賷丞 賱兀賵乇亘丕貙 賵胤賱毓 亘賳鬲賷噩丞 廿賳 丕賱爻賰丕賳 丿賵賱 毓賳丿賴賲 賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮乇賷賯 亘賷賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賵丕賱兀夭乇賯 丕賱賮丕鬲丨 賵廿賳賴賲 亘賷胤賱賯賵丕 毓賱賷賴賲 丕爻賲 賵丕丨丿貙 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 賯丿乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳賴賲 賵賱賰賳賴賲 卮丕賷賮賷賳 廿賳賴 賲賳 丕賱爻禺賮 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賱賮馗賷賳 賱丿乇噩鬲賷賳 賲賳 賱賵賳 賵丕丨丿.
賰匕賱賰 賱賵 賮賷 賷賵賲 賲賳 丕賱兀賷丕賲 馗賴乇 噩賴丕夭 賷賯丿乇 賷賲夭噩 亘賷賳 丕賱賳賰賴丕鬲 賵丕賱兀胤毓賲丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘丨賷孬 賷賯丿乇 賷胤賱毓 丌賱丕賮 賲賳 丕賱賲賳鬲噩丕鬲 亘丕賱鬲賱丕毓亘 賮賷 丕賱賯賵丕賲 賵丕賱丨賱丕賵丞 賵丕賱丨賲賵囟丞 賵丕賱氐賱丕亘丞 賵睾賷乇賴貙 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賴賷鬲賲 丕爻鬲丨丿丕孬 賲毓噩賲 禺丕氐 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賰賱 胤毓賲 亘氐賵乇丞 賲賳賮氐賱丞貙 賵賱賵 丨丿 噩丕亍 賱賷丿乇爻 卮毓賵亘 丕賱賯乇賳 21 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賴賷賰鬲卮賮 廿賳賳丕 賲毓賳丿賳丕卮 賲毓噩賲 禺丕氐 亘賰賱 胤毓賲 賵廿賳賳丕 賴賳毓亘乇 毓賳 丕賱兀胤毓賲丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘兀賯乇亘 丨丕噩丞 賱賷賳丕 賳毓乇賮賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 賯丿乇鬲賳丕 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 亘賷賳 賰賱 胤毓賲貙 賳賮爻 丕賱賰賱丕賲 毓賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賵禺氐賵氐丕 廿賳賴賲 賲賯丿乇賵卮 賷鬲賱丕毓亘賵丕 亘丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱氐賳丕毓賷丞 賰賲丕 賳賮毓賱 賳丨賳 丕賱丌賳 賵鬲毓丕賲賱賵丕 賲毓 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賮賷 丕賱睾丕賱亘 亘賲丕 鬲賵賮乇賴 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賮賯胤.
丕賱禺賱丕氐丞:
廿賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賳鬲氐乇鬲 賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲毓乇賰丞貙 賵丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賮爻賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 賱賷爻 賱賴丕 毓賱丕賯丞 亘廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳貙 賮丕賱賯丿賲丕亍 丕爻鬲胤丕毓賵丕 乇丐賷鬲賴丕 賰賲丕 賳乇丕賴丕 丕賱丌賳貙 賵丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賮賷 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 賱丕 賷毓亘乇 廿賱丕 毓賳 鬲胤賵乇丕鬲 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賮賯胤貙 賵賱賷爻鬲 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞.
亘爻 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賱賴丕 丿賵乇 賮賷 乇爻賲 丨丿賵丿 丕賱賱睾丞...
*
丕賱趩賳丿乇 丕賱賱睾賵賷 賵丕賱賮賰乇!
賴賱 鬲匕賰賷乇 賵鬲兀賳賷孬 丕賱噩賲丕丿丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞 亘賷兀孬乇 毓賱賶 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕責!
丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱賳丕 賱賭 (賴賵 - 賴賷) 毓卮丕賳 賳賵氐賮 兀卮賷丕亍 噩丕賲丿丞 賲賲賰賳 賷兀孬乇 毓賱賶 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕 賵賱賵 兀孬乇 賴賱 賴賷爻亘亘 賲卮丕賰賱責!
丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱趩賳丿乇賷丞 :
賴賷 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 丕賱賱賷 亘鬲丨丿丿 賳賵毓 丕賱丕爻賲 爻賵丕亍 賲匕賰乇 兀賵 賲丐賳孬 (賰賭 鬲丕亍 丕賱鬲兀賳賷孬 賮賷 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞) 賵賱賰賳 賲卮 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 亘鬲賯爻賲 丕賱兀爻賲丕亍 賱賲匕賰乇 賵賲丐賳孬貙 賮賴賳丕賰 亘毓囟 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 鬲賲賱賰 鬲賮乇賷賯 兀丿賯 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱噩賳丿乇 = 賱睾丞 丕賱亘丕賳鬲賵 賲孬賱丕 鬲賲鬲賱賰 丨賵丕賱賷 毓卮乇丞 鬲賯爻賷賲丕鬲貙 賵丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱兀爻鬲乇丕賱賷丞 (賳睾丕賳睾鬲賷賲賷乇賷) 鬲賲賱賰 禺賲爻丞 毓卮乇 鬲賯爻賷賲丕 = (丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲匕賰乇- 丕賱賲丐賳孬 - 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳 - 丕賱禺囟丕乇 - 丕賱賲卮乇賵亘丕鬲...)貙 賵賴賳丕賰 賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲賲賱賰 兀賷 鬲賯爻賷賲 噩賳丿乇賷 賲孬賱 丕賱鬲乇賰賷丞 賵丕賱賮賳賱賳丿賷丞 賵丕賱賮賷鬲賳丕賲賷丞 賵睾賷乇賴賲 . .
賵賴賳丕賰 賱睾丕鬲 亘鬲賲賱賰 噩賳丿乇 丨賷丕丿賷貙 賰丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賲孬賱丕
賲毓馗賲 兀賵 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲賲賱賰 賳馗丕賲 賲賳胤賯賷 孬丕亘鬲 賱賱噩賳丿乇 丕賱賱睾賵賷 貙 賵賱賰賳 賮賷 廿卮丕乇丕鬲 亘鬲賯賵賱 廿賳 賮賷 丕賱兀賵賱 丕賱賳馗丕賲 賰丕賳 賲賳胤賯賷 噩丿丕 賵賱賰賳 賲爻丕乇賴 丕賳丨乇賮 賲孬賱丕 賮賷 賱睾丞 丕賱睾賵乇睾賵賳賷 丕賱丕爻鬲乇丕賱賷丞 囟賲 (噩賳丿乇 丕賱禺囟丕乇) 丕爻賲 丕賱胤丕卅乇丞 毓亘乇 鬲爻賱爻賱 賷亘丿賵 賲賳胤賯賷 賮賮賷 丕賱亘丿亍 鬲賵爻毓 丕賱噩賳丿乇 賱賷卮賲賱 丕賱兀禺卮丕亘 孬賲 囟賲 丕賱賯賵丕乇亘 亘賲丕 兀賳賴丕 賲氐賳賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱兀禺卮丕亘 賮兀氐亘丨 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 賵爻丕卅賱 丕賱賲賵丕氐賱丕鬲 賰賱賴丕 賵毓賳丿 丿禺賵賱 丕賱胤丕卅乇丞 賱賱睾丞 丕賱卮毓亘 卮賲賱賴丕 噩賳丿乇 丕賱禺囟丕乇.
丕賱爻丐丕賱貙 賴賱 丕賱趩賳丿乇 丕賱賳丨賵賷 亘賷兀孬乇 毓賱賶 賮賰乇 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬賷賳 賮賷 乇丐賷鬲賴賲 賵賲賮賴賵賲賴賲 毓賳 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍責!
賮賷 毓丕賲 1915 賲丐爻爻丞 賲賵爻賰賵 賱毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻 賮賷 乇賵爻賷丕 胤賱亘鬲 賲賳 15 卮禺氐 廿賳賴賲 賷鬲禺賷賱賵丕 兀賷丕賲 丕賱兀爻亘賵毓 毓賱賶 廿賳賴賲 兀卮禺丕氐 賲毓賷賳賷賳!
賵賲賳 孬賲 賷賵氐賮賵丕 賴匕丕 丕賱卮禺氐 = 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 賮賷 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 鬲禺賷賱賵丕 賷賵賲 丕賱丕孬賳賷賳 賵丕賱孬賱丕孬丕亍 賵丕賱禺賲賷爻 賰乇噩丕賱貙 賵丕賱兀乇亘毓丕亍 賵丕賱噩賲毓丞 丕賱爻亘鬲 賰賳爻丕亍貙 賵賱賰賳賴賲 賲賯丿乇賵卮 賷丨丿丿賵丕 爻亘亘 賲賯賳毓 賱丕禺鬲賷丕乇鬲賴賲 賮丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 丕爻鬲賳鬲噩賵丕 廿賳 丕賱爻亘亘 乇丕噩毓 賱賰賵賳 兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱兀爻亘賵毓 丕賱賲匕賰乇丞 鬲禺賷賱賵賴丕 賰乇噩丕賱 賵丕賱賲丐賳孬丞 賰賳爻丕亍.
賮賷 丕賱鬲爻毓賷賳丕鬲 賯丕賲 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻 鬲賵卮賷 賰賵賳賷卮賷 亘鬲噩乇亘丞 賷賯丕乇賳 亘賷賴丕 亘賷賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕鬲 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷丞 賱賰賱 賲賳 賲鬲丨丿孬賷 丕賱丕爻亘丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞貙
賮賮賷 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賴賳丕賰 兀爻賲丕亍 亘賷鬲毓丕賰爻 賮賷賴丕 丕賱噩賳丿乇 賮賷 丕賱賱睾鬲賷賳 = 賮丕賱賴賵丕亍 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賲丐賳孬 亘賷賳賲丕 賮賷 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賲匕賰乇貙 賵丕賱噩爻乇 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷 賲丐賳孬 賵丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷 賲匕賰乇 賵賳賮爻 丕賱賰賱丕賲 亘賷賳胤亘賯 毓賱賶 丕賱爻丕毓丕鬲 賵丕賱卮賯賯 賵丕賱卮賵賰 賵丕賱氐丨賮...
賯丿賲 賰賵賳賷卮賷 賯丕卅賲丞 亘兀爻賲丕亍 匕丕鬲 噩賳丿乇 賲鬲毓丕乇囟 賮賷 丕賱賱睾鬲賷賳 賵胤賱亘 賲賳 賲鬲丨丿孬賷 丕賱賱睾鬲賷賳 廿賳賴賲 賷賵氐賮賵丕 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丿賷 賴賱 賴賷 賯賵賷丞 兀賲 囟毓賷賮丞 - 氐睾賷乇丞 兀賲 賰亘賷乇丞責
丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 廿賳 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲匕賰乇丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賵賲丐賳孬丞 賮賷 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 亘賳爻亘丞 兀賰亘乇 賯賵賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳 賵囟毓賷賮丞 毓賳丿 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳貙 賵亘丕賱毓賰爻 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲丐賳孬丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賵賲匕賰乇丞 賮賷 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 亘賳爻亘丞 兀賰亘乇 賯賵賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳 賵囟毓賷賮丞 毓賳丿 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳.
賮丕賱噩爻乇 丕賱賲匕賰乇 賮賷 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賴賵 匕賵 爻賲丕鬲 乇噩賵賱賷丞 亘賳爻亘丞 兀賰亘乇 毓賳丿 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳 賲賳 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳 . . 賵賱賰賳 賰丕賳 賴賳丕賰 丕毓鬲乇丕囟責!
廿賳 丕賱爻賲丕鬲 丿賷 睾賷乇 賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘丕賱噩爻乇 賳賮爻賴 亘賱 賳鬲賷噩丞 爻賲丕毓 兀丿丕鬲賷賳 丕賱鬲毓乇賷賮 "el- der".
賰丕賳 丕賱賲胤賱賵亘 兀賳 賷鬲賲 丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷丞 毓賱賶 丨丕賱丕鬲 賱丕 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 賮賷賴丕 兀丿賵丕鬲 丕賱鬲毓乇賷賮:
賱賷乇丕 亘賵乇賵丿鬲爻賰賷 賵賱賵乇賷賳 卮賲賷鬲貙 噩乇亘賵丕 賳賮爻 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 毓賱賶 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賳 亘丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賵賱賰賳 亘丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞貙 亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲毓賲賱 噩賳丿乇 丨賷丕丿賷 賱賱鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 丕賱噩賲丕丿丕鬲貙 賱賰賳 丕賱禺丕囟毓賷賳 賱賱鬲噩乇亘丞 賵氐賮賵丕 丕賱兀卮賷丕鬲 亘爻賲丕鬲 賲鬲毓丕乇囟丞 賲毓鬲賲丿丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲兀賳賷孬 賵丕賱鬲匕賰賷乇 賮賷 賱睾鬲賴賲貙 賮丕賱兀賱賲丕賳 賵氐賮賵丕 丕賱噩爻賵乇 亘兀賳賴丕 噩賲賷賱丞 兀賳賷賯丞 賵賳丨賷賱丞 賵賲丿賴卮丞貙 賵丕賱兀爻亘丕賳 賵氐賮賵賴丕 亘兀賳賴丕 賰亘賷乇丞 賵禺胤賷乇丞 賵賯賵賷丞 賵爻賲賷賰丞!
賵賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱鬲睾賱亘 毓賱賶 賳賮爻 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞貙 丨丕賵賱鬲 賲丕乇賷丕 爻賷乇丕 廿賳賴丕 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 氐賵乇 亘丿賱 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 賵胤賱亘鬲 賲賳 賮乇賳爻賷賷賳 賵兀爻亘丕賳 廿賳賴賲 賷禺鬲丕乇賵丕 兀氐賵丕鬲 賱賱氐賵乇 賱賱賲卮丕乇賰丞 賮賮賷 賮賷賱賲 = 賲丕賱 兀睾賱亘賷丞 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 賱丕禺鬲賷丕乇 兀氐賵丕鬲 乇噩丕賱 賱賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲匕賰乇丞 賮賷 賱睾鬲賴賲 賵兀氐賵丕鬲 賳爻丕亍 賱賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱賲丐賳孬丞 . .
丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱爻丕亘賯丞 亘鬲賵賮乇 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賰丕賮賷丞 毓賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱噩賳丿乇 丕賱賱睾賵賷 毓賱賶 賮賰乇 賲鬲賰賱賲賷賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賵賱賰賳 賮賷 賲卮賰賱丞 賵賴賷 廿賳 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丿賷 亘鬲胤賱亘 賲賳 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 禺賷丕賱賴賲貙 兀夭丕賷 賳賵氐賱 賱鬲噩乇亘丞 鬲丿賷賳丕 賲毓賱賵賲丞 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱禺囟賵毓 賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞責!
丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 爻賵夭丕賳 廿賮乇賷賳 丨丕賵賱鬲 鬲賯乇亘 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 卮賵賷丞 賵鬲禺賮賮 賲賳 丿賵乇 丕賱禺賷丕賱貙 賵丕毓鬲賲丿鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賷胤丕賱賷丞 丕賱賱賷 亘鬲囟賲 賱賴噩丕鬲 毓丿賷丿丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵丕禺鬲乇毓鬲 賰賱賲丕鬲 賲賳 毓賳丿賴丕 賲卮 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞 . . 賵丕賳鬲賴鬲 亘毓囟 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 亘丨乇賮 (o) 丕賱賱賷 亘賷丿賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲匕賰乇 賵丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱丌禺乇 丕賳鬲賴賶 亘丨乇賮 (A) 丕賱賱賷 亘賷丿賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丐賳孬 . . 賵毓乇囟鬲 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 毓賱賶 廿賷胤丕賱賷賷賳 賲賵丨賷丞 亘兀賳賴丕 賰賱賲丕鬲 賲賳 賱賴噩丞 兀禺乇賶 賵胤賱亘鬲 賲賳賴賲 賷賵氐賮賵丕 爻賲丕鬲 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丿賷責! . . 兀孬亘鬲鬲 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 廿賳 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 賰丕賳賵丕 亘賷賳爻亘賵丕 氐賮丕鬲 匕賰賵乇賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱賲賳鬲賴賷丞 亘丨乇賮 (o) 賵爻賲丕鬲 兀賳孬賵賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱賲賳鬲賴賷丞 亘丨乇賮 (A) 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 毓丿賲 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 亘賲毓丕賳賷 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 賵廿賳賴賲 亘賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵丕 禺賷丕賱賴賲 賲鬲賵賯毓賷賳 賵噩賵丿 廿噩丕亘丞 氐丨賷丨丞貙 亘爻 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賲丕夭丕賱鬲 賯丕卅賲丞 賳爻亘賷丕 賱兀賳 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 丕爻鬲禺丿賲賵丕 禺賷丕賱賴賲 丨鬲賶 賱賵 賵賴賲 賲賷毓乇賮賵卮.
賱賷乇丕 亘賵乇賵丿鬲爻賰賷 賵賱賵乇賷賳 卮賲賷鬲 丨丕賵賱賵丕 鬲丕賳賷 賷丨賱賵丕 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賮胤賱亘賵丕 賲賳 賲鬲丨丿孬賷賳 亘丕賱廿爻亘丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 廿賳賴賲 賷卮鬲乇賰賵丕 賮賷 賱毓亘丞 匕丕賰乇丞 賮毓乇囟賵丕 毓賱賷賴賲 賯丕卅賲丞 亘賭 24 噩賲丕丿 賵胤賱亘 賲賳賴賲 丨賮馗 丕爻賲 卮禺氐 賲毓賷賳 賷賰賵賳 賲賯丕亘賱 賱賱卮賷亍 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇 賮賷 丕賱賯丕卅賲丞 = 丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 廿賳 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰賷賳 鬲匕賰乇賵丕 亘卮賰賱 兀賮囟賱 丕賱丕爻賲丕亍 丕賱賱賷 亘賷鬲賵丕賮賯 賮賷賴丕 噩賳丿乇 丕賱賰賱賲丞 賲毓 噩賳爻 丕賱丕爻賲 賲孬賱丕 丕賱廿爻亘丕賳 鬲匕賰乇賵丕 亘卮賰賱 兀賮囟賱 丕爻賲 亘丕鬲乇賷卮丕 賱賱鬲賮丕丨丞 (賱丕 賲丕賳爻丕) 賱兀賳賴丕 賲丐賳孬丞 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 鬲匕賰乇賴賲 賱丕爻賲 亘丕鬲乇賷賰 . . 賵賰匕賱賰 賰丕賳 兀爻賴賱 鬲匕賰乇 丕爻賲 賰賱丕賵丿賷賵 -丕賱賲匕賰乇- 賰丕爻賲 賱賱噩爻乇 賲賯丕亘賱 丕爻賲 賰賱丕賵丿賷丕.
丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱爻丕亘賯丞 亘鬲兀賰丿 亘賲丕 賱丕 賷丿毓 賲噩丕賱 賱賱卮賰 廿賳 丕賱噩賳丿乇 丕賱賱睾賵賷 亘賷兀孬乇 賮賷 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰乇賷賳丕 賵鬲匕賰乇賳丕 賱賱兀卮賷丕亍貙 丕賱毓丕丿丞 丕賱賳丨賵賷丞 賮賷 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 (賴賵 賵賴賷) 賱賱兀卮賷丕亍 賴鬲鬲丨賵賱 賱毓丕丿丞 匕賴賳賷丞貙 賮鬲賮乇囟 爻賲丕鬲 兀賳孬賵賷丞 兀賵 匕賰賵乇賷丞 毓賱賶 兀卮賷丕亍 噩丕賲丿丞 賮賷 丨賯賷賯鬲賴丕貙 胤亘毓丕 丕賱賰賱丕賲 賲賱賵卮 毓賱丕賯丞 亘賯丿乇丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 賱兀賳賳丕 賯丕丿乇賷賳 噩丿丕 賳賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丕賱賳丨賵貙 賵賲卮 賴賳毓鬲賯丿 廿賳 賱賱噩賲丕丿丕鬲 兀毓囟丕亍 鬲賳丕爻賱賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳賴 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賷乇 亘賷賲孬賱 賯賷丿 亘鬲賮乇囟賴 毓賱賷賳丕 丕賱賱睾丞 賲賳 丿賵賳 兀賳 賳卮毓乇!!
賴賱 丕賱賳丕胤賯 亘丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賴賷卮賵賮 丨丕賱賳丕 賳丨賳 賲賳 賳賲賱賰 賳馗丕賲 噩賳丿乇賷 賮賷 賱睾鬲賳丕 廿賳賳丕 賲丿毓丕丞 賱賱卮賮賯丞 賵丕賱乇孬丕亍 亘賲丕 廿賳賴 賷賲賱賰 噩賳丿乇 丨賷丕丿賷!
賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱噩賳丿乇 丕賱賳丨賵賷 賵賴賵 賴丿賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 賱賱卮毓乇丕亍 . . 賮丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲賲鬲賱賰丞 賱噩賳丿乇 賳丨賵賷 賴賷 兀賰孬乇 禺氐賵亘丞 賲賳 氐丨乇丕亍 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 丕賱賱賷 亘鬲毓丕賳賷 賮賷 鬲乇噩賲丞 (賯氐賷丿丞 丕賱亘丨乇) 賱賳賷乇賵丿丕 賵賴賵 亘賷鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 丕賱亘丨乇 丕賱賲匕賰乇 丕賱賱賷 亘賭 賷乇胤賲 氐禺乇丞 賲丐賳孬丞 孬賲 (賷乇亘鬲 毓賱賷賴丕 賵賷賯亘賱賴丕 賵賷亘賱賱賴丕)賵賲噩賲賵毓丞 亘丕爻鬲乇賳丕賰 (丨賷丕鬲賷 丕賱卮賯賷賯丞) 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賱鬲賳噩丨 賱賵 賱賲 鬲賰賳 (丕賱丨賷丕丞) 賮賷 丕賱乇賵爻賷丞 賲丐賳孬丞 賵賱賰賳 丕賱噩賲丕丿丕鬲 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲兀鬲賷 賱賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 爻鬲賰賵賳 丨賷丕丿賷丞 亘賱丕 噩賳爻 賷毓亘乇 毓賳 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 卮噩乇 丕賱氐賳賵亘乇 賵丕賱賳禺賱丞!
*
禺丕鬲賲丞
丕賳鬲賯丿 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 賮乇囟賷丞 爻丕亘賷乇-賵賵乇賮 賵賰賱丕賲賴賲 毓賳 )賳爻亘賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞(貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賳賯胤鬲賷賳 兀爻丕爻賷鬲賷賳貙 丕賱兀賵賱賶 廿賳 爻丕亘賷乇 丕爻鬲賳鬲噩 賲賳 賲馗賴乇 賱睾賵賷 丕賱賱賷 賴賵 丿賲噩 丕賱丕爻賲 賲毓 丕賱賮毓賱 賮賷 賰賱賲丞 賵丕丨丿丞 夭賷 (廿賳賴丕 鬲賲胤乇( 賵賲賲賰賳 賳鬲乇噩賲 噩賲賱丞 爻賯胤 丕賱丨噩乇 賱兀爻賮賱 -賮賷 賱睾丞 丕賱爻賰丕賳 丕賱賭 丕爻鬲賳鬲噩 賲賳賴賲 爻丕亘賷乇 賲賱丕丨馗鬲賴- 廿賱賶 (賷丨噩乇 賱兀爻賮賱) 貙 丕爻鬲賳鬲噩 爻丕亘賷乇 廿賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賴賳丕 亘鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 丕賱賲鬲賰賱賲 亘賷賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丿賷 乇丐賷丞 兀丨丕丿賷丞 賱賱毓丕賱賲 賵亘賰丿賴 賲卮 賴賷毓乇賮 賷賮氐賱 亘賷賳 丕爻賲 丕賱卮賷亍 賵賮毓賱賴 賵賴賷卮賵賮賴賲 丨丕噩丞 賵丕丨丿丞!!
賵賵乇賮 丕爻鬲賳鬲噩 賲賳 賲丨丕丿孬丕鬲 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 賱睾丞 丕賱賴賵亘賷 廿賳 賲毓賳丿賴賲卮 夭賲賳 賵賲賮賷卮 毓賳丿賴賲 鬲氐乇賷賮丕鬲 賱睾賵賷丞 賱賱賲丕囟賷 賵丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賵賮丕爻鬲賳鬲噩 廿賳賴賲 賱丕 賷毓鬲亘乇賵丕 丕賱夭賲賳 丕賳爻賷丕亘賷 賲鬲爻賱爻賱 亘賱 兀丨丕丿賷 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴 兀賵 賲卮 賲賵噩賵丿 兀氐賱丕 . . 賵賰丕賳 賱賮乇囟賷丞 爻丕亘賷乇-賵賵乇賮 兀孬乇 賵丕爻毓貙 賵噩丕亍 廿賷賰賴丕乇鬲 賲丕賱賵鬲賰賷 賮賷 1983 匕賰乇 賮賷 兀賰鬲乇 賲賳 600 氐賮丨丞 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇丕鬲 丕賱夭賲賳賷丞 丕賱賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賮賷 賱睾丞 丕賱賴賵亘賷.
賱噩兀 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 賱賲丕 兀爻賲丕賴 毓賯賷丿丞 亘賵丕爻-噩丕賰亘爻賵賳貙 賵廿賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賰乇 賱賷爻 亘賲丕 鬲鬲賷丨賴 丕賱賱睾丞 賱賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳賴 賵賱賰賳 亘賲丕 鬲賮乇囟賴 毓賱賶 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬 亘賴丕 賲賳 丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘噩賵丕賳亘 賲毓賷賳丞 丿賵賳 丕賱兀禺乇賶貙 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱氐賷賳賷丞 賲孬賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬 丕賱鬲賴乇亘 賲賳 丕賱廿賮氐丕丨 毓賳 丕賱夭賲賳 賵丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賱丕 鬲賮乇囟 毓賱賶 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬 亘賴丕 丕賱廿賮氐丕丨 毓賳 噩賳爻 丕賱賮丕毓賱 賮賷 丨丕賱丕鬲 賲毓賷賳丞貙 賱睾丞 丕賱賲丕鬲爻賷爻 亘鬲賱夭賲 丕賱賲鬲賰賱賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 亘丿賯丞 毓賳 丕賱夭賲賳 賮亘鬲賮乇賯 亘賷賳 3 兀賵賯丕鬲 兀爻丕爻賷賳 (兀賯賱 賲賳 卮賴乇 - 兀賰亘乇 賲賳 卮賴乇 賱禺賲爻賷賳 毓丕賲 - 賲賳 禺丕賲爻賷賳 毓丕賲 賱兀亘毓丿) 賰賲丕賳 亘鬲賱夭賲賴 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賮氐丕丨 毓賳 胤乇賷賯丞 丨氐賵賱賴 毓賱賶 丕賱賲毓乇賮賴 爻賵丕亍 亘丕賱乇丐賷丞 兀賵 丕賱丨丿爻 兀賵 丕賱丨爻 兀賵 睾賷乇賴.
賮丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 亘鬲鬲噩賴 賱賮賴賲 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賰乇 亘賲丕 鬲賮乇囟賴 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賲鬲賰賱賲貙 亘丨賷孬 亘鬲鬲丨賵賱 丕賱毓丕丿丕鬲 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 賱毓丕丿丕鬲 匕賴賳賷丞 賵亘鬲兀孬乇 賮賷 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 兀賷囟丕.
賱睾丞 丕賱睾賵睾賵 賷賲賷孬乇 亘鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 丕賱廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 丕賱噩睾乇丕賮賷丞 亘丿賱 丕賱兀賳賵賷丞 egocentic 賮亘丿賱 賲丕 丕賱賲鬲賰賱賲 賷賯賵賱 (賴賳丕賰 賳賲賱丞 兀賲丕賲 賯丿賲賰) 賴賷賯賵賱 賴賳丕賰 賳賲賱丞 卮賻賲丕賱 賯丿賲賰 賵胤亘毓丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 亘賷鬲賵爻毓 賱賷卮賲賱 鬲匕賰乇賴 賱賲賵囟毓賴 毓賳丿 賵氐賮賴 賱丨丿孬 爻丕亘賯 賵賵氐賮 賲賰丕賳賴 賵鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賵氐賮 丿賴 賲毓 鬲睾賷乇 賲賰丕賳賴 丕賱丨丕賱賷 -賱丨馗丞 丕賱鬲匕賰乇- 賵丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴 賱賷丿賴 賵賴賳丕賰 賱睾丕鬲 兀禺乇賶 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 兀賷囟丕 廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 睾賷乇 (丕賱賷賲賷賳 賵丕賱賷爻丕乇) 兀賵 (丕賱卮賲丕賱 賵丕賱噩賳賵亘) . . 賮賱睾丞 亘賵賱賷賳賷夭賷丕 亘鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 賲丨丕賵乇 孬丕亘鬲丞 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 兀毓賱賶 丕賱噩亘賱 賵兀爻賮賱 丕賱賲賳丨丿乇!! . .
賵丕賱孬賱丕孬 賲賵丕囟賷毓 丕賱賰亘乇賶 丕賱賱賷 鬲賳丕賵賱賴賲 丿賵賷鬲卮乇 賮賷 賲毓丕賱噩鬲賴 賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 賴賲
- 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱兀賱賵賳
- 丕賱廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞
- 賵丕賱趩賳丿乇 丕賱賱睾賵賷
鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 睾賷乇 賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘廿丿乇丕賰賳丕 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賵賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 兀丿賱丞 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳 鬲孬亘鬲 廿賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賲賲賰賳 鬲賰賵賳 丨噩乇 毓孬乇丞 賮賷 爻亘賷賱 丨賱 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 亘丨賷孬 賷毓噩夭 兀賴賱 賱睾丞 賲丕 毓賱賶 賲賵丕噩賴丞 賲卮賰賱丞 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賲毓賷賳丞 賵鬲賰賵賳 賳賮爻 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賲丨賱賵賱丞 毓賳 兀賴賱 賱睾丞 兀禺乇賶 亘爻亘亘 賱睾鬲賴賲 賮賯胤 . . 賵賱賰賳 丨賷丕丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 兀賰孬乇 鬲毓賯賷丿丕 賲賳 兀賳 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳賴鬲賲 亘鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賱賶 丕賱噩賵丕賳亘 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 賮賯胤貙 賮賲丕 鬲賲 廿孬亘丕鬲賴 毓賱賲賷丕 賴賵 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賱賶 丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 賵丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 賵鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵賮賷 丕賱賲賴丕乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 賲孬賱 丨爻 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲.
January 1, 2023
The sciences are without a doubt my weakest reads. Try as I might, I am at times unable to take all the information supplied in as the brain does not sponge the info up as I would like. Be that as it may, popular science books such as this have the occasion to bring some semblance of wow moments to my sieve like mind.
I had never really thought of the language differences between various cultures when looking and talking about colour, for example. The use of language in spatial situations was so interesting that I reread a few passages just to get my head around that concept. The peoples of the Guugu Yimithirr from north Queensland having no concept of Right or Left, but using North/South/East/West in terms of describing direction no matter where they were? The chapter that covered this Where The Sun Doesn鈥檛 Rise In the East was fascinating. The gender differences in various languages were of particular interest, imagine the wars that have started just because of a misunderstood translation.
One comment I will make on the writing of language is that even the author got it wrong in one little passage. A man of the Guugu Yimithirr when discussing with linguists direction was quoted as saying 鈥淏ut white fellows wouldn鈥檛 understand that.鈥� Whitefella (or Blackfella) please when quoting indigenous Australians, I have never heard it different and suspect that if the author had known he may have written it that way. Did he miss any others, I asked myself?
Recommended to anyone with an interest in language.
I had never really thought of the language differences between various cultures when looking and talking about colour, for example. The use of language in spatial situations was so interesting that I reread a few passages just to get my head around that concept. The peoples of the Guugu Yimithirr from north Queensland having no concept of Right or Left, but using North/South/East/West in terms of describing direction no matter where they were? The chapter that covered this Where The Sun Doesn鈥檛 Rise In the East was fascinating. The gender differences in various languages were of particular interest, imagine the wars that have started just because of a misunderstood translation.
One comment I will make on the writing of language is that even the author got it wrong in one little passage. A man of the Guugu Yimithirr when discussing with linguists direction was quoted as saying 鈥淏ut white fellows wouldn鈥檛 understand that.鈥� Whitefella (or Blackfella) please when quoting indigenous Australians, I have never heard it different and suspect that if the author had known he may have written it that way. Did he miss any others, I asked myself?
Recommended to anyone with an interest in language.
May 23, 2016
賰鬲丕亘賹 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 乇丕卅毓 賵賲賮賷丿 賵賲賲鬲毓! 賵兀賳氐丨 亘賴 亘卮丿賾丞 賱賰賱 賲丨亘賽賾 賱賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵丕賱丕胤賱丕毓.
兀丨亘賾 鬲賱賰 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲胤乇丨 丕賱乇兀賷賷賳 丕賱賳賯賷囟賷賳貙 賵鬲賳丕賯卮賴賲丕貙 賵賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲孬丕賱 毓賱賶 匕賱賰.
賴賱 丕賱賱睾丞 兀孬乇 兀賲 賲丐孬賾乇責 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮丞. 賵亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 (丕賱禺賱賯賷丞)責! 兀賵 亘丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 鬲毓亘賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱噩賲賷賱丞貨 賴賱 丕賱賱睾丞 "賲乇丌丞" 賳乇賶 賮賷賴丕 丕賳毓賰丕爻 胤亘賷毓鬲賳丕 兀賲 賴賷 "毓丿爻丞 賳乇賶" 亘賴丕貙 賵鬲鬲卮賰賾賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 孬賯丕賮鬲賳丕責!
賷兀禺匕賳丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 乇丨賱丞 毓賱賲賷丞 毓賱賶 賲鬲賳 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 賵丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 賵丕賱賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 賮賷 乇丨賱丞 丕亘鬲丿兀鬲 亘爻丐丕賱 匕賰賷 賵賲賱丕丨馗丞 毓亘賯乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿賷 賱兀丨丿 丕賱賲賴賵賵爻賷賳 亘丕賱兀丿亘貙 毓賳丿賲丕 賱丕丨馗 睾賷丕亘 匕賰乇 丕賱賱賵賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賮賷 兀卮毓丕乇 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷 賵鬲爻賲賷丕鬲 兀賱賵丕賳 賲禺鬲賱賮丞! 賵丕爻鬲賯乇賾鬲 鈥撡呚べ傌嬝�- 毓賳丿 鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱乇賳賷賳 丕賱賲睾賳丕胤賷爻賷 丕賱賵馗賷賮賷 fMRI 賮賷 賲胤賱毓 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱丨丕丿賷 賵丕賱毓卮乇賷賳.
賷毓乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱兀賲孬賱丞賺 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賲賳 賱睾丕鬲賺 毓丿賾丞貨 亘毓囟賴丕 丨賷賾 賳丕亘囟 賰丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱氐賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵爻賷丞 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱毓亘乇賷丞 (賵賷毓乇賾噩 賯賱賷賱丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞)貙 賵亘毓囟賴丕 賲賷賾鬲 兀賵 賷丨鬲囟乇 賰賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賷卮 賮賷 兀胤乇丕賮 丕賱賯丕乇丕鬲 兀賵 兀丿睾丕賱 丕賱睾丕亘丕鬲.
賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨丿賷孬賹 毓賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵鬲爻賲賷丕鬲賴丕貙 賵丕丿毓丕亍丕鬲 鬲毓賯賷丿丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵鬲卮丕亘賴賴丕 兀賵 丕禺鬲賱丕賮賴丕貙 賵毓賳 鬲爻賲賷丕鬲 丕賱噩賴丕鬲 賵丕賱兀賲丕賰賳. 賰賲丕 賷鬲丨丿賾孬 賮氐賱賹 毓賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱鬲氐賳賷賮 丕賱賳賵毓賷 (丕賱噩賳丿乇) 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵賴賵 賮氐賱 賲賲鬲毓 噩丿賸丕貙 賵賮賷賴 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟 賱賰賷賮 賵氐賱鬲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 廿賱賶 鬲兀賳賷孬 賵鬲匕賰賷乇 亘毓囟 丕賱噩賲丕丿丕鬲!
賷丨賲賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賲賯鬲乇丨丞賺 賱丕 賯丕胤毓丞貙 賵賷丨賲賱 賰孬賷乇賸丕 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲丨賯賾 丕賱鬲賮賰賾乇 賵廿毓丕丿丞 丕賱賳馗乇. 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩丿賷乇 亘鬲乇賰 丕賳胤亘丕毓賴 丕賱賯賵賷賾 賮賷 賱賮鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲亘丕賴 廿賱賶 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕毓鬲丿賳丕賴丕 賵丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀賱賮賳丕賴丕.
卮賰乇賹 賵丕噩亘 賱爻賱爻賱丞 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱鬲賷 丨乇氐鬲 毓賱賶 鬲乇噩賲丞 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 毓賷賵賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵賳卮乇鬲賴丕 亘胤亘毓丕鬲 賱丕卅賯丞 亘賴丕 賵亘兀爻毓丕乇 夭賴賷丿丞貙 賵卮賰乇賹 賵丕噩亘 賱賱賲鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀亘丿毓鬲 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵賰鬲丕亘丞 亘毓囟 丕賱丨賵丕卮賷 丕賱鬲賵囟賷丨賷丞 (丿.丨賳丕賳 賲馗賮賾乇)貙 賵乇噩丕亍賹 禺丕氐 亘兀賳 賳乇賶 毓賲賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱丌禺乇 ( unfolding language ) 賵丕賱匕賷 兀卮丕乇 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賴 毓丿賾丞 賲乇丕鬲賺 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴匕丕 賲鬲乇噩賲賸丕 亘匕丕鬲 丕賱噩賵丿丞.
兀丨亘賾 鬲賱賰 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲胤乇丨 丕賱乇兀賷賷賳 丕賱賳賯賷囟賷賳貙 賵鬲賳丕賯卮賴賲丕貙 賵賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲孬丕賱 毓賱賶 匕賱賰.
賴賱 丕賱賱睾丞 兀孬乇 兀賲 賲丐孬賾乇責 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮丞. 賵亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 (丕賱禺賱賯賷丞)責! 兀賵 亘丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 鬲毓亘賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱噩賲賷賱丞貨 賴賱 丕賱賱睾丞 "賲乇丌丞" 賳乇賶 賮賷賴丕 丕賳毓賰丕爻 胤亘賷毓鬲賳丕 兀賲 賴賷 "毓丿爻丞 賳乇賶" 亘賴丕貙 賵鬲鬲卮賰賾賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 孬賯丕賮鬲賳丕責!
賷兀禺匕賳丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 乇丨賱丞 毓賱賲賷丞 毓賱賶 賲鬲賳 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 賵丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 賵丕賱賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 賮賷 乇丨賱丞 丕亘鬲丿兀鬲 亘爻丐丕賱 匕賰賷 賵賲賱丕丨馗丞 毓亘賯乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿賷 賱兀丨丿 丕賱賲賴賵賵爻賷賳 亘丕賱兀丿亘貙 毓賳丿賲丕 賱丕丨馗 睾賷丕亘 匕賰乇 丕賱賱賵賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賮賷 兀卮毓丕乇 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷 賵鬲爻賲賷丕鬲 兀賱賵丕賳 賲禺鬲賱賮丞! 賵丕爻鬲賯乇賾鬲 鈥撡呚べ傌嬝�- 毓賳丿 鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱乇賳賷賳 丕賱賲睾賳丕胤賷爻賷 丕賱賵馗賷賮賷 fMRI 賮賷 賲胤賱毓 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱丨丕丿賷 賵丕賱毓卮乇賷賳.
賷毓乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱兀賲孬賱丞賺 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賲賳 賱睾丕鬲賺 毓丿賾丞貨 亘毓囟賴丕 丨賷賾 賳丕亘囟 賰丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱氐賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵爻賷丞 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱毓亘乇賷丞 (賵賷毓乇賾噩 賯賱賷賱丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞)貙 賵亘毓囟賴丕 賲賷賾鬲 兀賵 賷丨鬲囟乇 賰賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賷卮 賮賷 兀胤乇丕賮 丕賱賯丕乇丕鬲 兀賵 兀丿睾丕賱 丕賱睾丕亘丕鬲.
賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨丿賷孬賹 毓賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵鬲爻賲賷丕鬲賴丕貙 賵丕丿毓丕亍丕鬲 鬲毓賯賷丿丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵鬲卮丕亘賴賴丕 兀賵 丕禺鬲賱丕賮賴丕貙 賵毓賳 鬲爻賲賷丕鬲 丕賱噩賴丕鬲 賵丕賱兀賲丕賰賳. 賰賲丕 賷鬲丨丿賾孬 賮氐賱賹 毓賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱鬲氐賳賷賮 丕賱賳賵毓賷 (丕賱噩賳丿乇) 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵賴賵 賮氐賱 賲賲鬲毓 噩丿賸丕貙 賵賮賷賴 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟 賱賰賷賮 賵氐賱鬲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 廿賱賶 鬲兀賳賷孬 賵鬲匕賰賷乇 亘毓囟 丕賱噩賲丕丿丕鬲!
賷丨賲賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賲賯鬲乇丨丞賺 賱丕 賯丕胤毓丞貙 賵賷丨賲賱 賰孬賷乇賸丕 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲丨賯賾 丕賱鬲賮賰賾乇 賵廿毓丕丿丞 丕賱賳馗乇. 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩丿賷乇 亘鬲乇賰 丕賳胤亘丕毓賴 丕賱賯賵賷賾 賮賷 賱賮鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲亘丕賴 廿賱賶 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕毓鬲丿賳丕賴丕 賵丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀賱賮賳丕賴丕.
卮賰乇賹 賵丕噩亘 賱爻賱爻賱丞 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱鬲賷 丨乇氐鬲 毓賱賶 鬲乇噩賲丞 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 毓賷賵賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵賳卮乇鬲賴丕 亘胤亘毓丕鬲 賱丕卅賯丞 亘賴丕 賵亘兀爻毓丕乇 夭賴賷丿丞貙 賵卮賰乇賹 賵丕噩亘 賱賱賲鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀亘丿毓鬲 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵賰鬲丕亘丞 亘毓囟 丕賱丨賵丕卮賷 丕賱鬲賵囟賷丨賷丞 (丿.丨賳丕賳 賲馗賮賾乇)貙 賵乇噩丕亍賹 禺丕氐 亘兀賳 賳乇賶 毓賲賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱丌禺乇 ( unfolding language ) 賵丕賱匕賷 兀卮丕乇 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賴 毓丿賾丞 賲乇丕鬲賺 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴匕丕 賲鬲乇噩賲賸丕 亘匕丕鬲 丕賱噩賵丿丞.
Read
February 1, 2021A very interesting read on what's best known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that the language you speak affects the way you're able to think)--the history of this, dating back to Gladstone on Homer, the fact-ignoring enthusiasm and nonsense that got spewed in its support and a few, acknowledgedly weak and pretty trivial, ways in which language does seem to shape our thoughts. Mostly really interesting on making you think about how we work around the constraints of language if/when we need to, and some deep seated cultural effects (which are not the same thing as constraints on thought)--as is observed, the issue isn't what information a language doesn't include, it's more what it forces you to include.
Well written and highly readable.
Well written and highly readable.
November 3, 2021
賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賰乇丞 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丞 賵丕賱毓賯賱貙 賵賴賱 賷鬲睾賷乇 賲賳馗賵乇賳丕 賱賱毓丕賱賲 亘丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賱睾丕鬲賳丕責
賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷毓 賲賲鬲毓 賵賲賲賷夭
賵兀馗賳 亘兀賳賷 爻兀賯乇兀 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 賮賷賲丕 賷禺氐 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓.
賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷毓 賲賲鬲毓 賵賲賲賷夭
賵兀馗賳 亘兀賳賷 爻兀賯乇兀 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 賮賷賲丕 賷禺氐 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓.
January 25, 2014
I can understand people who feel that Through the Language Glass didn't quite fulfill its promise. The subtitle might be more accurately, "does the world look different in other languages?" And the answer is yes, but in a limited way that won't be satisfying to those who want the answer to be an unequivocal yes. People feel that the world is different (for them) in different languages, and even that they are different in other languages, but there just isn't the scientific data to back those feelings up.
(For me, and this is a brief digression, I do suspect that those who "feel different" when they speak other languages aren't taking into account context. For example, say you speak Hebrew with your family and English in school. You are a different person in those two contexts, but not because of the language you speak. You're adapting yourself to the situation, including the language. I suspect that even years after that division is so clear, where you might speak Hebrew to someone in the workplace, the associations remain.)
Anyway, I found the book itself a bit dense and prone to repetition, but overall, very interesting. I loved the discussion of the issue of colour in Homer's work, as it's something that inevitably came up when discussing his epithets in class. Why "wine-dark sea"? How could the sea look like wine? And this book has the answer.
It's fairly conservative in its conclusions, not going beyond the available data -- and mocking rather people who did go beyond their data -- and explaining everything at some length rather than packing in various new ideas. It does include a lot of examples and interesting facts about various languages, like languages which don't use egocentric directions but always geographical ones. I would've been interested in a bit more on gendered language, but it doesn't seem as if the work has been done there, yet. It also gives some credit for ideas that were ahead of their time, even if they were founded on shaky principles, which was interesting.
Ultimately, Deutscher explains why early assumptions that language affects the way we perceive the world were wrong -- but then goes on to explain that that instinctive feeling isn't wrong in itself.
(For me, and this is a brief digression, I do suspect that those who "feel different" when they speak other languages aren't taking into account context. For example, say you speak Hebrew with your family and English in school. You are a different person in those two contexts, but not because of the language you speak. You're adapting yourself to the situation, including the language. I suspect that even years after that division is so clear, where you might speak Hebrew to someone in the workplace, the associations remain.)
Anyway, I found the book itself a bit dense and prone to repetition, but overall, very interesting. I loved the discussion of the issue of colour in Homer's work, as it's something that inevitably came up when discussing his epithets in class. Why "wine-dark sea"? How could the sea look like wine? And this book has the answer.
It's fairly conservative in its conclusions, not going beyond the available data -- and mocking rather people who did go beyond their data -- and explaining everything at some length rather than packing in various new ideas. It does include a lot of examples and interesting facts about various languages, like languages which don't use egocentric directions but always geographical ones. I would've been interested in a bit more on gendered language, but it doesn't seem as if the work has been done there, yet. It also gives some credit for ideas that were ahead of their time, even if they were founded on shaky principles, which was interesting.
Ultimately, Deutscher explains why early assumptions that language affects the way we perceive the world were wrong -- but then goes on to explain that that instinctive feeling isn't wrong in itself.
August 7, 2011
As a native Russian speaker, I always felt different from Americans. I've always wondered if the language i was brought up with altered my thinking in ways Americans weren't. I was hoping to get the answer in this book and I was really disappointed.
The book started out strong, showing how 3 different languages defined "culture" in different ways (French being most romantic and German being most brutal). But then once I started reading the book, it never really delved deeply into the subject of how language affects thought or behavior. The intro and reviews (it was recommended on New York Times) made it sound like a book about language affecting thought. IT wasn't.
I liked Deutchers' writing style. He was easy to read and funny. I liked his use of many examples, and then defining the examples to make it REALLY easy to understand. However, he NEVER really defined how A Language makes ONE society's thought be different from another's. He talked a little bit how a language FORCES one to pay attention and speak in a specific way. I really loved his example of how some cultures only have N S E W directions instead of front, back, left right. I understand what he said. I liked his analysis on "how can all language be equally complex? they cant." But i wish there were more examples like that.
More than half of the book (waaay too much ) was devoted to how different societies define colors. For example, how many cultures only have one word for green and blue. Maybe it's just that many studies haven't been done on language and culture. I don't know. Then he devoted a TINY section of the book to sex of objects, but not enough.
This book should have been titled "Culture and Color." I would have been less let down if he JUST focused on color (he did so for more than half the book) and talk about other stuff (sex of objects, directions) in another book. "Through the Language Glass" was interesting, and well researched, but not what the book intro claimed to be about.
The book started out strong, showing how 3 different languages defined "culture" in different ways (French being most romantic and German being most brutal). But then once I started reading the book, it never really delved deeply into the subject of how language affects thought or behavior. The intro and reviews (it was recommended on New York Times) made it sound like a book about language affecting thought. IT wasn't.
I liked Deutchers' writing style. He was easy to read and funny. I liked his use of many examples, and then defining the examples to make it REALLY easy to understand. However, he NEVER really defined how A Language makes ONE society's thought be different from another's. He talked a little bit how a language FORCES one to pay attention and speak in a specific way. I really loved his example of how some cultures only have N S E W directions instead of front, back, left right. I understand what he said. I liked his analysis on "how can all language be equally complex? they cant." But i wish there were more examples like that.
More than half of the book (waaay too much ) was devoted to how different societies define colors. For example, how many cultures only have one word for green and blue. Maybe it's just that many studies haven't been done on language and culture. I don't know. Then he devoted a TINY section of the book to sex of objects, but not enough.
This book should have been titled "Culture and Color." I would have been less let down if he JUST focused on color (he did so for more than half the book) and talk about other stuff (sex of objects, directions) in another book. "Through the Language Glass" was interesting, and well researched, but not what the book intro claimed to be about.
November 26, 2015
賱賲丕匕丕 賱丕 鬲兀禺匕 賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賳 丕賱氐丿賶 丕賱廿毓賱丕賲丞 賵 丕賱囟噩丞 丕賱賲賵囟賵賷丞 賰賲丕 賱睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱亘賷毓賷丞 丕賱鬲噩丕乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 鬲爻賲賳 賵 賱丕 鬲睾賳賷 賲賳 卮賷亍!
亘賱丕 鬲乇丿丿 賴匕丕 兀賮囟賱 賰鬲丕亘 賯乇兀鬲賴 賮賷 2015賾!
賲賳 亘賷賳 45 賰鬲丕亘 ...
- 亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丕賱匕賷 兀鬲乇噩賲賴 "賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賳馗丕乇丞 丕賱賱睾丞" 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賲賳 丕賱賳賵毓 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 廿賱賷賴 丕賱兀賳馗丕乇 兀賵 賷丿賱 毓賱賶 賲丨鬲賵丕賴 丕賱孬賲賷賳 ...
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 賰賲 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賵 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵 丕賱丕賮丕鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 毓賳 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇爻 賱賱丕噩丕亘丞丞 毓賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賴賱 賱睾鬲賳丕 丕賱兀賲 鬲丐孬乇 毓賱賶 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕 責
賴賱 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賷賮賰乇 亘賳賲胤 賲禺鬲賱賮 毓賳 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷 責 毓賳 丕賱氐賷賳賷責 賱賲噩乇丿 兀賳 賱睾鬲賴 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 (亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 賵 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 ) 責責責
丕爻鬲禺丿賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 孬賱丕孬 丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 乇卅賷爻賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 兀孬亘鬲 丕賱毓賱賲 兀賳賴丕 鬲兀孬乇 毓賱賶 乇丕賷鬲賳丕 賱賱毓丕賱賲 :
1- 賲賮乇丿丕鬲賳丕 賮賷 賵氐賮 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 賵 賵氐賮 丕賱丕賲丕賰賳 賳爻亘賷丕
2- 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷丞 (丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱賲匕賰乇丞 賵 丕賱賲丐賳孬丞) 亘賷賳 賱睾丞 賵 兀禺乇賶
3- 兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳
鬲賯乇賷乇賷 兀賳賴 兀賮囟賱 賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 兀賳賴 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 丕賳 賷賯鬲丨賲 兀賲丕賰賳 噩丿賷丿丞 賮賷 賮賴賲賷 賱賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賵 兀賳 兀爻兀賱 兀爻卅賱丞 噩丿賷丿丞 亘兀噩賵亘丞 睾賷乇 賲鬲賵賯毓丞 ...
賴賳丕賰 賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲賮乇賯 賮賷 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨 亘賷賳 丕賱丕禺囟乇 賵 丕賱丕夭乇賯 .... 賴賱 賷乇賵賳 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲賱賮責 兀賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇 賱丿賷賴賲 賵 馗丕卅賮 丕賱亘氐乇 賲孬賱 睾賷乇賴賲 賲賳 丕賱卮毓賵亘責 賴賱 賱丿賷賴賲 毓賲賶 兀賱賵丕賳 噩賲毓賷責 賴賱 賷丐孬乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨 毓賱賶 鬲賲賷賷夭賴賲 賱賱丕賱賵丕賳 賵 丿乇噩鬲賴丕 賵 匕丕賰乇鬲賴賲 責
賴賳丕賰 賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲毓乇賮 丕賱賷賲賷賳 賵 丕賱賷爻丕乇 賵 丕賱丕賲丕賲 賵 丕賱禺賱賮! 賵 丕賳賲丕 賰賱 賲丕 鬲毓乇賮賴 賴賵 丕賱卮賲丕賱 賵 丕賱噩賳賵亘 賵 丕賱卮乇賯 賵 丕賱睾乇亘 .... 賵 丕賱毓賲爻 氐丨賷丨 .... 賵賱賰賳 賰賷賮 賷乇賵賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 責 賰賱毓亘丞 賷鬲丨乇賰 賮賷賴丕 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 賵 丕賱丕乇囟 孬丕亘鬲賴 責 兀賲 賰卮禺氐賷丞 鬲鬲丨乇賰 賲毓賴丕 丕賱賰丕賲賷乇丕 丕賷賳賲丕 鬲丨乇賰 .... 賮賱丕 賷賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱卮乇賯 賵 丕賱睾乇亘 賲丕 賱賲 鬲鬲賵丕噩丿 賯乇賷賳賴 !
毓賳丿賲丕 賳賯賵賲 亘爻丌賱 丕賱兀爻亘丕賳 毓賳 賵氐賮 賰賱賲丞 "噩爻乇" 賮丕賳賴賲 賷賯賵賱賵賳 丕賳賴 賯賵賷 賵 賲鬲賷賳 (賰賲丕 丕賱毓乇亘) 亘賷賳賲丕 毓賳丿賲丕 賳爻兀賱 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳 賮廿賳賴賲 賷乇丿賵賳 兀賳賴 乇卮賷賯 賵 噩賲賷賱 賵 賲乇賳 !
賵 丕賱爻亘亘 賷乇噩毓 兀賳 賱賮馗 噩爻乇 毓賳丿 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳 賲丐賳孬 (噩爻乇丞) .... 賴賱 丨賯丕 賷丐孬乇 匕賱賰 毓賱賶 乇丐鬲賳丕 賱賱兀卮賷丕亍 賵 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕 賮賷賴丕 !
兀乇卮丨 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘卮丿丞 賱賰賱 丕賱賯乇丕亍 ....
亘賱丕 鬲乇丿丿 賴匕丕 兀賮囟賱 賰鬲丕亘 賯乇兀鬲賴 賮賷 2015賾!
賲賳 亘賷賳 45 賰鬲丕亘 ...
- 亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丕賱匕賷 兀鬲乇噩賲賴 "賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賳馗丕乇丞 丕賱賱睾丞" 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賲賳 丕賱賳賵毓 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 廿賱賷賴 丕賱兀賳馗丕乇 兀賵 賷丿賱 毓賱賶 賲丨鬲賵丕賴 丕賱孬賲賷賳 ...
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 賰賲 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賵 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵 丕賱丕賮丕鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 毓賳 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇爻 賱賱丕噩丕亘丞丞 毓賳 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賴賱 賱睾鬲賳丕 丕賱兀賲 鬲丐孬乇 毓賱賶 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕 責
賴賱 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賷賮賰乇 亘賳賲胤 賲禺鬲賱賮 毓賳 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳賷 責 毓賳 丕賱氐賷賳賷責 賱賲噩乇丿 兀賳 賱睾鬲賴 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 (亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 賵 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 ) 責責責
丕爻鬲禺丿賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 孬賱丕孬 丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 乇卅賷爻賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 兀孬亘鬲 丕賱毓賱賲 兀賳賴丕 鬲兀孬乇 毓賱賶 乇丕賷鬲賳丕 賱賱毓丕賱賲 :
1- 賲賮乇丿丕鬲賳丕 賮賷 賵氐賮 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 賵 賵氐賮 丕賱丕賲丕賰賳 賳爻亘賷丕
2- 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷丞 (丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱賲匕賰乇丞 賵 丕賱賲丐賳孬丞) 亘賷賳 賱睾丞 賵 兀禺乇賶
3- 兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳
鬲賯乇賷乇賷 兀賳賴 兀賮囟賱 賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 兀賳賴 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 丕賳 賷賯鬲丨賲 兀賲丕賰賳 噩丿賷丿丞 賮賷 賮賴賲賷 賱賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賵 兀賳 兀爻兀賱 兀爻卅賱丞 噩丿賷丿丞 亘兀噩賵亘丞 睾賷乇 賲鬲賵賯毓丞 ...
賴賳丕賰 賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲賮乇賯 賮賷 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨 亘賷賳 丕賱丕禺囟乇 賵 丕賱丕夭乇賯 .... 賴賱 賷乇賵賳 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲賱賮責 兀賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇 賱丿賷賴賲 賵 馗丕卅賮 丕賱亘氐乇 賲孬賱 睾賷乇賴賲 賲賳 丕賱卮毓賵亘責 賴賱 賱丿賷賴賲 毓賲賶 兀賱賵丕賳 噩賲毓賷責 賴賱 賷丐孬乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨 毓賱賶 鬲賲賷賷夭賴賲 賱賱丕賱賵丕賳 賵 丿乇噩鬲賴丕 賵 匕丕賰乇鬲賴賲 責
賴賳丕賰 賱睾丕鬲 賱丕 鬲毓乇賮 丕賱賷賲賷賳 賵 丕賱賷爻丕乇 賵 丕賱丕賲丕賲 賵 丕賱禺賱賮! 賵 丕賳賲丕 賰賱 賲丕 鬲毓乇賮賴 賴賵 丕賱卮賲丕賱 賵 丕賱噩賳賵亘 賵 丕賱卮乇賯 賵 丕賱睾乇亘 .... 賵 丕賱毓賲爻 氐丨賷丨 .... 賵賱賰賳 賰賷賮 賷乇賵賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 責 賰賱毓亘丞 賷鬲丨乇賰 賮賷賴丕 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 賵 丕賱丕乇囟 孬丕亘鬲賴 責 兀賲 賰卮禺氐賷丞 鬲鬲丨乇賰 賲毓賴丕 丕賱賰丕賲賷乇丕 丕賷賳賲丕 鬲丨乇賰 .... 賮賱丕 賷賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱卮乇賯 賵 丕賱睾乇亘 賲丕 賱賲 鬲鬲賵丕噩丿 賯乇賷賳賴 !
毓賳丿賲丕 賳賯賵賲 亘爻丌賱 丕賱兀爻亘丕賳 毓賳 賵氐賮 賰賱賲丞 "噩爻乇" 賮丕賳賴賲 賷賯賵賱賵賳 丕賳賴 賯賵賷 賵 賲鬲賷賳 (賰賲丕 丕賱毓乇亘) 亘賷賳賲丕 毓賳丿賲丕 賳爻兀賱 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳 賮廿賳賴賲 賷乇丿賵賳 兀賳賴 乇卮賷賯 賵 噩賲賷賱 賵 賲乇賳 !
賵 丕賱爻亘亘 賷乇噩毓 兀賳 賱賮馗 噩爻乇 毓賳丿 丕賱兀賱賲丕賳 賲丐賳孬 (噩爻乇丞) .... 賴賱 丨賯丕 賷丐孬乇 匕賱賰 毓賱賶 乇丐鬲賳丕 賱賱兀卮賷丕亍 賵 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕 賮賷賴丕 !
兀乇卮丨 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘卮丿丞 賱賰賱 丕賱賯乇丕亍 ....
January 21, 2015
I really enjoyed this book, even though, or maybe because, it was not at all what I expected. I was expecting a kind of language survey detailing the ways in which various languages differ from each other that might possibly be related to culture. For example, the rather overplayed number of different words Inuit has for snow. I did not expect a very well written argument against some of the widely accepted tenets of linguistic theory, such as the Chomsky/Pinker belief that language is an inborn instinct not affected by environment or culture or that all languages are equally complex. Instead, Deutscher demonstrates both ways in which culture influences language -- the "language mirror" -- and how language influences culture -- the "language lens".
I'm not sure he entirely makes the case for his positions. Although his examples are detailed and well demonstrated, there are relatively few of them. However, I got the impression he was not expecting to totally overturn linguistic thought, but instead to reanimate a discussion that had been unfairly discontinued. I felt like what he was really objecting to were the absolutes of previous theory. Deutscher says that language is more complex than we thought, or than linguistic scholars thought. He doesn't specifically deny the existence of a language instinct, but says that there's a lot more to it than that.
Deutscher's writing style is very relaxed, almost colloquial. A thought provoking and very enjoyable read.
I'm not sure he entirely makes the case for his positions. Although his examples are detailed and well demonstrated, there are relatively few of them. However, I got the impression he was not expecting to totally overturn linguistic thought, but instead to reanimate a discussion that had been unfairly discontinued. I felt like what he was really objecting to were the absolutes of previous theory. Deutscher says that language is more complex than we thought, or than linguistic scholars thought. He doesn't specifically deny the existence of a language instinct, but says that there's a lot more to it than that.
Deutscher's writing style is very relaxed, almost colloquial. A thought provoking and very enjoyable read.
March 2, 2021
伲.佶/佶
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲孬乇賷 賵丕爻鬲賮丿鬲 賲賳賴 賰孬賷乇 亘丕賱匕丕鬲 賮賷 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丕鬲貙 賵賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱賲賰丕賳 賵丕賱賲爻丕丨丞 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴丕 亘丕賱賱睾丞貙 賰賳鬲 賲爻鬲賲鬲毓 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賰賳 賯賱 鬲賯丿賷乇賷 賱賴 毓賳丿 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱兀賳賷 賲丕 賵噩丿鬲賴 鬲毓乇賾囟 賱賱賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 亘卮賰賱 賰丕賮賷 (賰賷賮 鬲噩毓賱賰 丕賱賱睾丞 鬲賳馗乇 丕賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲賱賮). 丕賰鬲賮賶 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘丿乇丕爻丞 鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賲賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賳 孬賱丕孬 賲賵丕囟賷毓 賴賷 丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱丕賱賵丕賳 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳 賵丕賱鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賱睾丞. 賵乇睾賲 賰賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 賲賱賮鬲丞 賵賲賴賲丞 賵匕賰賷丞貙 賱賰賳 賷睾賮賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 噩賵丕賳亘 兀禺乇賶 賰孬賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賮賲孬賱丕賸 賱賲 賷鬲胤乇賾賯 廿賱丕 賱賲丕賲丕賸 賱兀孬乇 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賱賶 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱噩賵丕賳亘 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷貙 賵睾丕賱亘丕賸 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賷 丕禺鬲賷丕乇賴 賴賵 毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賲賷丞 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賴匕賴 丕賱噩賵丕賳亘貙 賵鬲卮賰賱 丕賱丕亘丨丕孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賱賲乇噩毓賷丞 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 賱賱賲丐賱賾賮 賵賷亘賯賶 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱賮賰乇賷 賲丨丿賵丿丕賸 賱賱睾丕賷丞. 乇睾賲 匕賱賰貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 賵賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲孬乇賷 賵丕爻鬲賮丿鬲 賲賳賴 賰孬賷乇 亘丕賱匕丕鬲 賮賷 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丕鬲貙 賵賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱賲賰丕賳 賵丕賱賲爻丕丨丞 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴丕 亘丕賱賱睾丞貙 賰賳鬲 賲爻鬲賲鬲毓 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賰賳 賯賱 鬲賯丿賷乇賷 賱賴 毓賳丿 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱兀賳賷 賲丕 賵噩丿鬲賴 鬲毓乇賾囟 賱賱賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 亘卮賰賱 賰丕賮賷 (賰賷賮 鬲噩毓賱賰 丕賱賱睾丞 鬲賳馗乇 丕賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲賱賮). 丕賰鬲賮賶 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘丿乇丕爻丞 鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賲賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賳 孬賱丕孬 賲賵丕囟賷毓 賴賷 丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱丕賱賵丕賳 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳 賵丕賱鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賱睾丞. 賵乇睾賲 賰賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 賲賱賮鬲丞 賵賲賴賲丞 賵匕賰賷丞貙 賱賰賳 賷睾賮賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 噩賵丕賳亘 兀禺乇賶 賰孬賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賮賲孬賱丕賸 賱賲 賷鬲胤乇賾賯 廿賱丕 賱賲丕賲丕賸 賱兀孬乇 丕賱賱睾丞 毓賱賶 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱噩賵丕賳亘 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷貙 賵睾丕賱亘丕賸 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賷 丕禺鬲賷丕乇賴 賴賵 毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賲賷丞 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賴匕賴 丕賱噩賵丕賳亘貙 賵鬲卮賰賱 丕賱丕亘丨丕孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賱賲乇噩毓賷丞 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 賱賱賲丐賱賾賮 賵賷亘賯賶 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱賮賰乇賷 賲丨丿賵丿丕賸 賱賱睾丕賷丞. 乇睾賲 匕賱賰貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 賵賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞
November 24, 2022
3.5 stars
An interesting, readable work of popular nonfiction. The title sounds as if it will be a defense of the now-roundly-discredited Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posited that language determined people鈥檚 worldviews (so for instance, languages without a future tense had speakers with no concept of the future. As it happens, plenty of languages spoken by advanced societies don鈥檛 have a future tense, which in no way impairs people鈥檚 ability to plan: in Japanese, for instance, present and future tenses are merged, and we also frequently do this in English although for us it isn鈥檛 obligatory. Think 鈥淚鈥檓 going to the store tomorrow.鈥�).
In fact, Deutscher begins by thoroughly debunking Sapir-Whorf himself, before moving on to discuss some far more limited ways in which language affects people鈥檚 thoughts. The big one is our perception of color. Scholars of ancient texts noted back in the 19th century that colors were weirdly absent or just plain weirdly described, from Homer to the Vedas to the Old Testament, which led to research showing consistent patterns in languages鈥� development of color vocabulary: we start with black and white, then red, and then move on to yellow, green, and blue, with a bit of variation but blue generally coming last. Before a language has a specific term, its speakers can still see the colors, of course, but studies seem to show that we actually perceive colors falling under the same linguistic umbrellas as shades of each other, and thus closer to each other than they actually are.
A later, fascinating chapter deals with sense of direction, and the now-famous Guugu Yimithirr (an Aboriginal language of Australia), with its positional language that uses only cardinal directions, rather than situating people or objects in relation to one another. (You couldn鈥檛 say in Guugu Yimithirr that something is in front of or behind you, for instance: it must be north, east, south or west of you.) Variations on this exist around the world鈥攊sland languages that define everything as seaward or inland, mountain languages where it鈥檚 upslope or downslope. Speakers develop such a finely tuned sense of the cardinal directions at all times that it鈥檚 virtually impossible to disorient them, and directions are even firmly encoded into their memories of events, both dramatic and mundane.
Other chapters deal with languages that assign gender to inanimate objects (or, bizarrely, assign genders to humans that contradict their actual sex, such as German using 鈥渋t鈥� articles for 鈥済irl,鈥� at which point 鈥済ender鈥� in today鈥檚 usage seems a misleading term for the whole classification system), and how this affects people鈥檚 perceptions of objects. And there鈥檚 a bit on language complexity, mostly focused on Deutscher鈥檚 debunking of the claim that all languages are equally complex. This was somewhat puzzling to me, not having heard the claim but on the ways tiny, isolated languages tend to be incredibly baroque. According to Deutscher, this is largely in the morphology: tiny languages tend to have very complex word structures, while more-spoken languages tend to have more sounds and more complex sentence structures with lots of room for subordinate clauses.
Overall, this is definitely an interesting book, though its ultimate conclusion seems to be that the effects of language on the mind are mostly a matter of trivia鈥攑ending, of course, further research. It鈥檚 very readable, and I generally enjoyed my time with it (though the way he talks about indigenous societies being displaced and massacred comes off as pretty callous鈥攊t鈥檚 hard to tell on the page if he was going for black humor). A worthwhile read for those particularly interested in the topic.
An interesting, readable work of popular nonfiction. The title sounds as if it will be a defense of the now-roundly-discredited Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posited that language determined people鈥檚 worldviews (so for instance, languages without a future tense had speakers with no concept of the future. As it happens, plenty of languages spoken by advanced societies don鈥檛 have a future tense, which in no way impairs people鈥檚 ability to plan: in Japanese, for instance, present and future tenses are merged, and we also frequently do this in English although for us it isn鈥檛 obligatory. Think 鈥淚鈥檓 going to the store tomorrow.鈥�).
In fact, Deutscher begins by thoroughly debunking Sapir-Whorf himself, before moving on to discuss some far more limited ways in which language affects people鈥檚 thoughts. The big one is our perception of color. Scholars of ancient texts noted back in the 19th century that colors were weirdly absent or just plain weirdly described, from Homer to the Vedas to the Old Testament, which led to research showing consistent patterns in languages鈥� development of color vocabulary: we start with black and white, then red, and then move on to yellow, green, and blue, with a bit of variation but blue generally coming last. Before a language has a specific term, its speakers can still see the colors, of course, but studies seem to show that we actually perceive colors falling under the same linguistic umbrellas as shades of each other, and thus closer to each other than they actually are.
A later, fascinating chapter deals with sense of direction, and the now-famous Guugu Yimithirr (an Aboriginal language of Australia), with its positional language that uses only cardinal directions, rather than situating people or objects in relation to one another. (You couldn鈥檛 say in Guugu Yimithirr that something is in front of or behind you, for instance: it must be north, east, south or west of you.) Variations on this exist around the world鈥攊sland languages that define everything as seaward or inland, mountain languages where it鈥檚 upslope or downslope. Speakers develop such a finely tuned sense of the cardinal directions at all times that it鈥檚 virtually impossible to disorient them, and directions are even firmly encoded into their memories of events, both dramatic and mundane.
Other chapters deal with languages that assign gender to inanimate objects (or, bizarrely, assign genders to humans that contradict their actual sex, such as German using 鈥渋t鈥� articles for 鈥済irl,鈥� at which point 鈥済ender鈥� in today鈥檚 usage seems a misleading term for the whole classification system), and how this affects people鈥檚 perceptions of objects. And there鈥檚 a bit on language complexity, mostly focused on Deutscher鈥檚 debunking of the claim that all languages are equally complex. This was somewhat puzzling to me, not having heard the claim but on the ways tiny, isolated languages tend to be incredibly baroque. According to Deutscher, this is largely in the morphology: tiny languages tend to have very complex word structures, while more-spoken languages tend to have more sounds and more complex sentence structures with lots of room for subordinate clauses.
Overall, this is definitely an interesting book, though its ultimate conclusion seems to be that the effects of language on the mind are mostly a matter of trivia鈥攑ending, of course, further research. It鈥檚 very readable, and I generally enjoyed my time with it (though the way he talks about indigenous societies being displaced and massacred comes off as pretty callous鈥攊t鈥檚 hard to tell on the page if he was going for black humor). A worthwhile read for those particularly interested in the topic.
February 26, 2024
Dilin bili艧sel yetilerimiz 眉zerindeki etkilerini anlatan ufuk a莽谋c谋 bir kitap. Bu etkileri 眉莽 konuyla inceliyor: renk alg谋s谋, mekan alg谋s谋 ve cinsiyet alg谋s谋. Dilin etkileri 眉zerine bir莽ok 莽al谋艧ma var. Deutscher dilin d眉艧眉nme stillerimize y枚n verdi臒ini pek 莽ok deneyle 枚rnekliyor. Buna kar艧谋n somut veri y谋臒谋n谋na 莽evirmiyor, pop眉ler bilim okuyucular谋n谋 e臒lendirecek bir 眉slubu var.
Ba艧ka bir dil 枚臒renmenin d眉艧眉nme stiline etkileri, d眉nyay谋 g枚rme bi莽imimiz 眉zerine etkileri, akl谋n ve k眉lt眉r眉n evrimine etkileri gibi 莽ok temel konular谋 i艧liyor. Genel olarak tezlerinin alt谋n谋 dolduruyor. 脟eviriler ve bug眉n kaybolmaya ba艧layan kabile dilleri 眉zerine 枚rneklerini 莽ok makul buldum. Kabile dilleri konusunda ne denli yan谋ld谋臒谋m谋z谋 anlat谋yor. Dilbilimciler bile kabile dillerinin kelime 枚l莽e臒ini bilemiyor. D眉艧眉nd眉臒眉m眉zden 莽ok geni艧 hatta konu艧tu臒umuz dile 莽ok yak谋n bir kelime da臒arc谋klar谋 var. K眉reselle艧menin varl谋臒谋n谋 tehlikeye att谋臒谋 bu diller -bu tabir ne kadar do臒ru emin de臒ilim ama- do臒al bulunuyor. Bu do臒al dillerdeki d眉艧眉nce sisteminin etkilerini yorumluyor. 脟eviriler de iyi bir 枚rnekti. 脰zellikle ba艧ka 莽a臒lardan yap谋lan 莽evirilerde d眉艧眉nce stilimizin farkl谋l谋臒谋 ortaya 莽谋k谋yor. Decameron ve Homeros鈥檜 kullan谋yor. Homeros鈥檛a renk kullan谋m谋 daha 枚nce hi莽 dikkat etmedi臒im bir konuydu, okurken 艧a艧谋rd谋m. 艦arap rengi deniz, zeytin rengi deniz gibi 莽ok farkl谋 renk tan谋mlar谋 var. Yazar bu garipliklerin izini s眉r眉yor. Arg眉manlar谋na kar艧谋 莽谋k谋lsa da iyi bir d眉艧眉nme egzersizi sa臒l谋yor bu kitap. 脟ok faydal谋 buldum.
Ba艧ka bir dil 枚臒renmenin d眉艧眉nme stiline etkileri, d眉nyay谋 g枚rme bi莽imimiz 眉zerine etkileri, akl谋n ve k眉lt眉r眉n evrimine etkileri gibi 莽ok temel konular谋 i艧liyor. Genel olarak tezlerinin alt谋n谋 dolduruyor. 脟eviriler ve bug眉n kaybolmaya ba艧layan kabile dilleri 眉zerine 枚rneklerini 莽ok makul buldum. Kabile dilleri konusunda ne denli yan谋ld谋臒谋m谋z谋 anlat谋yor. Dilbilimciler bile kabile dillerinin kelime 枚l莽e臒ini bilemiyor. D眉艧眉nd眉臒眉m眉zden 莽ok geni艧 hatta konu艧tu臒umuz dile 莽ok yak谋n bir kelime da臒arc谋klar谋 var. K眉reselle艧menin varl谋臒谋n谋 tehlikeye att谋臒谋 bu diller -bu tabir ne kadar do臒ru emin de臒ilim ama- do臒al bulunuyor. Bu do臒al dillerdeki d眉艧眉nce sisteminin etkilerini yorumluyor. 脟eviriler de iyi bir 枚rnekti. 脰zellikle ba艧ka 莽a臒lardan yap谋lan 莽evirilerde d眉艧眉nce stilimizin farkl谋l谋臒谋 ortaya 莽谋k谋yor. Decameron ve Homeros鈥檜 kullan谋yor. Homeros鈥檛a renk kullan谋m谋 daha 枚nce hi莽 dikkat etmedi臒im bir konuydu, okurken 艧a艧谋rd谋m. 艦arap rengi deniz, zeytin rengi deniz gibi 莽ok farkl谋 renk tan谋mlar谋 var. Yazar bu garipliklerin izini s眉r眉yor. Arg眉manlar谋na kar艧谋 莽谋k谋lsa da iyi bir d眉艧眉nme egzersizi sa臒l谋yor bu kitap. 脟ok faydal谋 buldum.
August 7, 2012
I finished this book, like, two weeks ago, right when my job's special breed of life-consuming crazy was bearing down on me with an animalistic rabidity. Let's see what I remembered about it, aside from the fact that it was generously packed with treats that made my inner word-nerd dance oh-so-whitely with joy.
First of all, the author's first language is Yiddish. Seeing as I know far more native-tongue butchers of English than I do folks who can finesse the language like they're trying to get into its pants on the first date, it always disproportionately impresses me when a non-native speaker can so thoroughly rock this notoriously tricky tongue. Every well-executed pun (my ultimate linguistic guilty pleasure, for sure), every beautifully rendered lengthy sentence, every GRE-worthy word did something extra-special to my brain because I just couldn't get over how flawless and stunning Deutscher's English is. There are people who can write literately and there are people who should be getting paid to write because they're so bloody good at it: Betcha can't guess where I think the author fits on that spectrum.
The book begins with a lengthy examination of how color names and thresholds vary across languages. The strangeness of Homer's color vocabulary in "The Odyssey" ("wine-dark sea" being the jumping-off point here), possible biological mutations of the eye over a couple millennia, different cultures' attitudes toward the importance of naming hues, and how red always seems to be the first proper color to be saddled with a name are just a few of the topics explored in the book's first half. Since the influence that language and culture have on each other is apparently a concept in its respectable infancy (being the victim of red herrings, faulty conclusions and plain ol' stereotyping had reduced the line of thinking to rather embarrassing lows), it seems like using color-naming conventions as a primary example was the best way to go; however, had I not come to this book with a background in art and color theory (waning as they may be), I probably would have gone cross-eyed many times before yelling at the book to get to the bloody point already.
In exploring a topic as broad as cultural variations, even confining them to their linguistic mirrors leaves room for numerous forays into surprise discoveries. The failure of translations -- when, for example, one language employs gender nomenclature in ways the other doesn't -- was especially interesting to me. Realizing how a passage can be so packed with implications and inherent musicality in its original tongue but so flat and uninspired in another left me with a whole new respect for the difficulties of translating an entire work, especially once this book offered up snippets indicating that knowing a language is only half of truly understanding its place as a living, malleable part of society.
There were other things that tickled me enough to hastily scribble a few now-nonsensically truncated notes to myself, like how this book didn't focus on just the more popular Germanic and Romance languages, as quite a few tribal tongues received considerable attention. A number of languages seemed to reflect a less-than-modern view of women (I'll be damned if I can think of any examples right now). And it seems as though Latin has been key in uncovering cultural differences, though I could have told you that as a high-school freshman, thanks to my then-textbook's inclusion of "plagosa" (which means "fond of whipping") in its back-of-the-book dictionary.
First of all, the author's first language is Yiddish. Seeing as I know far more native-tongue butchers of English than I do folks who can finesse the language like they're trying to get into its pants on the first date, it always disproportionately impresses me when a non-native speaker can so thoroughly rock this notoriously tricky tongue. Every well-executed pun (my ultimate linguistic guilty pleasure, for sure), every beautifully rendered lengthy sentence, every GRE-worthy word did something extra-special to my brain because I just couldn't get over how flawless and stunning Deutscher's English is. There are people who can write literately and there are people who should be getting paid to write because they're so bloody good at it: Betcha can't guess where I think the author fits on that spectrum.
The book begins with a lengthy examination of how color names and thresholds vary across languages. The strangeness of Homer's color vocabulary in "The Odyssey" ("wine-dark sea" being the jumping-off point here), possible biological mutations of the eye over a couple millennia, different cultures' attitudes toward the importance of naming hues, and how red always seems to be the first proper color to be saddled with a name are just a few of the topics explored in the book's first half. Since the influence that language and culture have on each other is apparently a concept in its respectable infancy (being the victim of red herrings, faulty conclusions and plain ol' stereotyping had reduced the line of thinking to rather embarrassing lows), it seems like using color-naming conventions as a primary example was the best way to go; however, had I not come to this book with a background in art and color theory (waning as they may be), I probably would have gone cross-eyed many times before yelling at the book to get to the bloody point already.
In exploring a topic as broad as cultural variations, even confining them to their linguistic mirrors leaves room for numerous forays into surprise discoveries. The failure of translations -- when, for example, one language employs gender nomenclature in ways the other doesn't -- was especially interesting to me. Realizing how a passage can be so packed with implications and inherent musicality in its original tongue but so flat and uninspired in another left me with a whole new respect for the difficulties of translating an entire work, especially once this book offered up snippets indicating that knowing a language is only half of truly understanding its place as a living, malleable part of society.
There were other things that tickled me enough to hastily scribble a few now-nonsensically truncated notes to myself, like how this book didn't focus on just the more popular Germanic and Romance languages, as quite a few tribal tongues received considerable attention. A number of languages seemed to reflect a less-than-modern view of women (I'll be damned if I can think of any examples right now). And it seems as though Latin has been key in uncovering cultural differences, though I could have told you that as a high-school freshman, thanks to my then-textbook's inclusion of "plagosa" (which means "fond of whipping") in its back-of-the-book dictionary.
Read
January 19, 2020M眉thi艧 bir kitap. 脰ncelikle klasik bir 'dile dair bildi臒imiz her 艧ey' kitab谋ndan 枚te 'bilim insan谋 olarak bilmedi臒imiz, bildi臒imizi sand谋臒谋m谋z, bilmesek de bildi臒imizde 谋srar etti臒imiz ve 谋srarla da tekrar etti臒imiz 艧eyler' kitab谋 da ayn谋 zamanda. Yakla艧谋m谋 hem 艧眉pheci hem de mizahi. Dil 眉zerine geni艧 kapsaml谋 ve tutarl谋 bir zeminde y眉r眉t眉len tart谋艧malar, dil 眉zerine d眉艧眉nmek i莽in g眉zel veriler sunuyor. M眉tevazi 眉slubu da asla elden b谋rakm谋yor, hep bir ''bence 艧枚yle ama yine de ileride bir g眉n z谋rval谋yor oldu臒um ortaya 莽谋kabilir'' havas谋yla yazm谋艧 Deutscher.
Rahatl谋kla takip edilip, kavranabiliyor ve iddial谋 yarg谋larda bulunmamas谋na ra臒men bir s眉r眉 艧ey 枚臒retiyor.
Rahatl谋kla takip edilip, kavranabiliyor ve iddial谋 yarg谋larda bulunmamas谋na ra臒men bir s眉r眉 艧ey 枚臒retiyor.
July 22, 2019
毓亘乇 賲賳馗丕乇 丕賱賱睾丞.. 賰賷賮 賷亘丿賵 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲禺鬲賱賮丕 亘賱睾丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞責
睾丕賷 丿賵賷鬲卮乇
毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞
..................
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲丕夭 噩丿丕 兀孬丕乇 賮賰乇丞 賯賵賷丞 賵毓乇囟 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇丞 丨賵賱 賲丿賷 氐丿賯賴丕 賲賳 毓丿賲賴. 丕賱賮賰乇丞 鬲賯賵賱 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 賲賳馗丕乇 賷乇賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賵兀賳 鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 賯丿 賷睾賷乇 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 賷賮賰乇 亘賴 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷乇賷 亘賴丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲.
賯丿賷賲丕 丕毓鬲賯丿 丕賱亘毓囟 兀賳 賵噩賵丿 賮毓賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱貙 賴賵 賲丕 賷賲賳丨賳丕 兀賲賱丕 賮賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賵賷賳賯匕賳丕 賲賳 丕賱毓丿賲賷丞貙 亘賱 賲賳 丕賱丕賳鬲丨丕乇 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷. 賮賷賯賵賱 爻鬲丕賷賳乇: "賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 鬲氐丕乇賷賮 兀賮毓丕賱賳丕 兀賰孬乇 賴卮丕卮丞 賱賲丕 丕爻鬲胤毓賳丕 丕賱丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇 賮賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞". (賵賱丕 亘丿 兀賳賴 賯丿 賲賳 毓賱賷賴 亘賵丨賷 賳亘賵卅賷貙 賮丕賱毓卮乇丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮鬲賯丿 鬲氐乇賷賮 賮毓賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 丌禺匕丞 賮賷 丕賱丕賳賯乇丕囟).
賱賰賳 賴賱 賮毓賱丕 鬲賯賵丿 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕 廿賱賷 廿丿乇丕賰丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞責 賵賴賱 鬲毓鬲亘乇 賱睾鬲賳丕 丕賱賲毓賷賳丞 丕賱毓丿爻丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳乇賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕責 賴匕丕 賴賵 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 丕賱匕賷 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 鬲賯丿賷賲 兀丿賱丞 毓賱賷賴 廿賷噩丕亘丕 兀賵 爻賱亘丕. 賲賳丕賯卮丕鬲 胤賵賷賱丞 丕爻鬲賲乇鬲 賱賯乇丕亘丞 賯乇賳 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賱賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賳 賴匕丕 丕賱爻丐丕賱.
賴賱 鬲賯賵丿 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕 賳丨賵 兀賮賰丕乇 賵鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞責 賷噩賷亘 賲毓馗賲 丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 丕賱噩丕丿賷賳 毓賳 噩賲賷毓 賴匕賴 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 亘丕賱賳賮賷 丕賱賯丕胤毓. 賮丕賱乇兀賷 丕賱卮丕卅毓 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾賵賷賷賳 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇賷賳 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 兀爻丕爻丕 賮胤乇賷丞貙 賵亘賲毓賳賷 丌禺乇貙 廿賳 兀爻丕爻賷丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞 賲胤亘賵毓丞 賮賷 噩賷賳丕鬲賳丕貙 賵賴賷 賲鬲卮丕亘賴丞 毓賳丿 噩賲賷毓 兀氐賳丕賮 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷
丕賴鬲賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘噩賲毓 兀丿賱丞 丨賵賱 氐丿賯 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘兀賳賴丕 鬲賯賵丿 丕賱賮賰乇 賮賷 丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞貙 賷乇賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 兀賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賰賷 賳乇丕賴丕 亘賵囟賵丨 賮賱丕亘丿 賲賳 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賲毓噩賲 丕賱賱睾賵賷 丕賱匕賷 賷爻丕賳丿 丕賱賲毓噩賲 丕賱亘氐乇賷 賰賷 鬲鬲賲 乇丐賷丞 丕賱賱賵賳.
賯丿賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳賲丕夭噩 賱孬賯丕賮丕鬲 丕禺鬲賱賮鬲 賮賷賴丕 乇丐賷丞 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 毓賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳乇丕賴丕 丕賱丌賳. 賮丕賱賱賵賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賲孬賱丕 賰丕賳 丌禺乇 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱鬲賷 兀囟丕賮賴丕 丕賱賳丕爻 賱賲毓噩賲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲貙 賵賷毓鬲亘乇 丌禺乇 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 鬲賲賷賷夭賴丕 亘氐乇賷丕 (丨爻亘 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞)貙 賲賳 兀賴賲 賲丕 賯丿賲賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賴賵 賲毓噩賲 兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱卮丕毓乇 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲亘乇 卮丿賷丿 丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕賰 賯賷丕爻丕 賱毓亘賯乇賷鬲賴 丕賱卮丕毓乇賷丞.
賯丿賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳賲丕夭噩 賰匕賱賰 賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賮賷 鬲丨丿賷丿 廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 丕賱兀賲丕賰賳 丨爻亘 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵兀孬乇 匕賱賰 毓賱賷 丕賱賯丿乇丞 丕賱賲賰丕賳賷丞 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 丨爻亘 賱睾鬲賴貙 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱賮乇賵賯 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵兀孬乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賱毓丕賲丞 賱賱賳丕爻.
賵兀禺賷乇丕 賮廿賳 賴賳丕賰 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 賵丕囟丨丕 毓賱賷 兀賳 兀賷 鬲兀孬賷乇 賱賱睾丞 丕賱兀賲 毓賱賷 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕 賴賵 鬲丕賮賴 賵賱丕 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲貙 賵兀賳賳丕 賮賷 丕賱兀爻丕爻 噩賲賷毓丕 賳賮賰乇 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賵丕丨丿丞.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷孬賷乇 賮賰乇丞 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱賱丕 丕禺鬲賷丕乇賷丞 賮賷 賵噩賵丿賴丕貙 賵賷毓胤賷 賮賰乇丞 丨賵賱 丕賱鬲賳賵毓 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 賵丕賱爻賱賵賰 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵賷丿賮毓 亘卮丿丞 賳丨賵 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 賴匕賴 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲.
睾丕賷 丿賵賷鬲卮乇
毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞
..................
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲丕夭 噩丿丕 兀孬丕乇 賮賰乇丞 賯賵賷丞 賵毓乇囟 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇丞 丨賵賱 賲丿賷 氐丿賯賴丕 賲賳 毓丿賲賴. 丕賱賮賰乇丞 鬲賯賵賱 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 賲賳馗丕乇 賷乇賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賵兀賳 鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賱睾丞 賯丿 賷睾賷乇 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 賷賮賰乇 亘賴 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷乇賷 亘賴丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲.
賯丿賷賲丕 丕毓鬲賯丿 丕賱亘毓囟 兀賳 賵噩賵丿 賮毓賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱貙 賴賵 賲丕 賷賲賳丨賳丕 兀賲賱丕 賮賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賵賷賳賯匕賳丕 賲賳 丕賱毓丿賲賷丞貙 亘賱 賲賳 丕賱丕賳鬲丨丕乇 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷. 賮賷賯賵賱 爻鬲丕賷賳乇: "賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 鬲氐丕乇賷賮 兀賮毓丕賱賳丕 兀賰孬乇 賴卮丕卮丞 賱賲丕 丕爻鬲胤毓賳丕 丕賱丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇 賮賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞". (賵賱丕 亘丿 兀賳賴 賯丿 賲賳 毓賱賷賴 亘賵丨賷 賳亘賵卅賷貙 賮丕賱毓卮乇丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賮鬲賯丿 鬲氐乇賷賮 賮毓賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 丌禺匕丞 賮賷 丕賱丕賳賯乇丕囟).
賱賰賳 賴賱 賮毓賱丕 鬲賯賵丿 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕 廿賱賷 廿丿乇丕賰丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞責 賵賴賱 鬲毓鬲亘乇 賱睾鬲賳丕 丕賱賲毓賷賳丞 丕賱毓丿爻丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳乇賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕責 賴匕丕 賴賵 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 丕賱匕賷 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 鬲賯丿賷賲 兀丿賱丞 毓賱賷賴 廿賷噩丕亘丕 兀賵 爻賱亘丕. 賲賳丕賯卮丕鬲 胤賵賷賱丞 丕爻鬲賲乇鬲 賱賯乇丕亘丞 賯乇賳 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賱賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賳 賴匕丕 丕賱爻丐丕賱.
賴賱 鬲賯賵丿 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賳丕胤賯賷賴丕 賳丨賵 兀賮賰丕乇 賵鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞責 賷噩賷亘 賲毓馗賲 丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 丕賱噩丕丿賷賳 毓賳 噩賲賷毓 賴匕賴 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 亘丕賱賳賮賷 丕賱賯丕胤毓. 賮丕賱乇兀賷 丕賱卮丕卅毓 亘賷賳 丕賱賱睾賵賷賷賳 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇賷賳 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 兀爻丕爻丕 賮胤乇賷丞貙 賵亘賲毓賳賷 丌禺乇貙 廿賳 兀爻丕爻賷丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞 賲胤亘賵毓丞 賮賷 噩賷賳丕鬲賳丕貙 賵賴賷 賲鬲卮丕亘賴丞 毓賳丿 噩賲賷毓 兀氐賳丕賮 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷
丕賴鬲賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘噩賲毓 兀丿賱丞 丨賵賱 氐丿賯 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘兀賳賴丕 鬲賯賵丿 丕賱賮賰乇 賮賷 丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞貙 賷乇賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 兀賳 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賰賷 賳乇丕賴丕 亘賵囟賵丨 賮賱丕亘丿 賲賳 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賲毓噩賲 丕賱賱睾賵賷 丕賱匕賷 賷爻丕賳丿 丕賱賲毓噩賲 丕賱亘氐乇賷 賰賷 鬲鬲賲 乇丐賷丞 丕賱賱賵賳.
賯丿賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳賲丕夭噩 賱孬賯丕賮丕鬲 丕禺鬲賱賮鬲 賮賷賴丕 乇丐賷丞 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 毓賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳乇丕賴丕 丕賱丌賳. 賮丕賱賱賵賳 丕賱兀夭乇賯 賲孬賱丕 賰丕賳 丌禺乇 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱鬲賷 兀囟丕賮賴丕 丕賱賳丕爻 賱賲毓噩賲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲貙 賵賷毓鬲亘乇 丌禺乇 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 鬲賲賷賷夭賴丕 亘氐乇賷丕 (丨爻亘 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞)貙 賲賳 兀賴賲 賲丕 賯丿賲賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賴賵 賲毓噩賲 兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱卮丕毓乇 賴賵賲賷乇賵爻 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲亘乇 卮丿賷丿 丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕賰 賯賷丕爻丕 賱毓亘賯乇賷鬲賴 丕賱卮丕毓乇賷丞.
賯丿賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳賲丕夭噩 賰匕賱賰 賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賮賷 鬲丨丿賷丿 廿丨丿丕孬賷丕鬲 丕賱兀賲丕賰賳 丨爻亘 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵兀孬乇 匕賱賰 毓賱賷 丕賱賯丿乇丞 丕賱賲賰丕賳賷丞 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 丨爻亘 賱睾鬲賴貙 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱賮乇賵賯 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 賵兀孬乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賱毓丕賲丞 賱賱賳丕爻.
賵兀禺賷乇丕 賮廿賳 賴賳丕賰 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 賵丕囟丨丕 毓賱賷 兀賳 兀賷 鬲兀孬賷乇 賱賱睾丞 丕賱兀賲 毓賱賷 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賳丕 賴賵 鬲丕賮賴 賵賱丕 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲貙 賵兀賳賳丕 賮賷 丕賱兀爻丕爻 噩賲賷毓丕 賳賮賰乇 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賵丕丨丿丞.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷孬賷乇 賮賰乇丞 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱賱丕 丕禺鬲賷丕乇賷丞 賮賷 賵噩賵丿賴丕貙 賵賷毓胤賷 賮賰乇丞 丨賵賱 丕賱鬲賳賵毓 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 賵丕賱爻賱賵賰 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵賷丿賮毓 亘卮丿丞 賳丨賵 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 賴匕賴 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲.
June 8, 2019
賰鬲丕亘丞 賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賲賷 毓亘乇 胤乇丨 兀賲孬賱丞 賵賯氐氐 賱賱鬲賵氐賱 賱賮賰乇丞 賲丕貙 兀爻賱賵亘 噩丿賷丿 賵賲禺鬲賱賮 賱賰賳賴 噩賲賷賱.. 乇睾賲 兀賳 鬲乇噩賲鬲賴 兀賵氐賱鬲 丕賱賲毓賳賶 噩賷丿賸丕 賱賰賳賴丕 兀胤丕賱鬲 丕賱胤乇賷賯.. 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丕鬲 丿丕卅賲賸丕 賲丕 鬲胤賷賱 丕賱胤乇賷賯!
賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賱睾丞 賷賳鬲賯丿 亘毓囟 賲爻賱賲丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲貙 賵賷毓賷丿 胤乇丨 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 亘胤乇賯 兀禺乇賶貙 賴賱 丨賯賸丕 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丿乇噩丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲毓賯賷丿 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳賳丕 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞責 賲丕 丕賱賲毓賷丕乇責
賴賱 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賱睾丕鬲賴丕 亘丿丕卅賷丞 兀賷囟賸丕責 賲丕 鬲毓乇賷賮 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞責 賱睾丞 丕賱賴賳賵丿 丕賱丨賲乇 鬲賯丕乇亘 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賱丕鬲賷賳賷丞 賮賷 氐毓賵亘鬲賴丕! :)
賰賷賮 鬲噩乇兀鬲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕乇賷丞 丕賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 兀賳賴丕 亘丿丕卅賷丞 賱兀賳賴丕 賱丕 鬲乇鬲亘 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賲毓賷賳丞 兀賵 賱丕 鬲丨鬲賵賷 賲爻賲賷丕鬲 賱兀卮賷丕亍 賲毓賷賳丞責 賱賲丕匕丕 兀氐賱賸丕 賷亘鬲丿毓 卮毓亘 賲丕 賲爻賲賶 賱卮賷亍 賲丕 賱丕 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賴 賵賱丕 賷爻鬲賮賷丿 賲賳賴 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 亘賷卅鬲賴責
丕賱氐乇丕毓 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 亘爻亘亘 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱賲爻賲賷丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 賵"丕賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 丕賱卮賷亍 賮乇毓 毓賳 鬲氐賵乇賴"..
賵丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀賴賲 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賱 丕賱賱睾丞 賲乇丌丞 賱毓賯賱賳丕 賵孬賯丕賮鬲賳丕 兀賲 毓丿爻丞 賳乇賶 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕責 賲賳 賷鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱丌禺乇責
賲丕 毓賱賷賳丕.. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賵氐賱 賱賱亘丨孬 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱毓賯賱.
賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賱睾丞 賷賳鬲賯丿 亘毓囟 賲爻賱賲丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲貙 賵賷毓賷丿 胤乇丨 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 亘胤乇賯 兀禺乇賶貙 賴賱 丨賯賸丕 賰賱 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丿乇噩丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲毓賯賷丿 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳賳丕 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞責 賲丕 丕賱賲毓賷丕乇責
賴賱 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賱睾丕鬲賴丕 亘丿丕卅賷丞 兀賷囟賸丕責 賲丕 鬲毓乇賷賮 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞責 賱睾丞 丕賱賴賳賵丿 丕賱丨賲乇 鬲賯丕乇亘 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賱丕鬲賷賳賷丞 賮賷 氐毓賵亘鬲賴丕! :)
賰賷賮 鬲噩乇兀鬲 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕乇賷丞 丕賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 兀賳賴丕 亘丿丕卅賷丞 賱兀賳賴丕 賱丕 鬲乇鬲亘 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賲毓賷賳丞 兀賵 賱丕 鬲丨鬲賵賷 賲爻賲賷丕鬲 賱兀卮賷丕亍 賲毓賷賳丞責 賱賲丕匕丕 兀氐賱賸丕 賷亘鬲丿毓 卮毓亘 賲丕 賲爻賲賶 賱卮賷亍 賲丕 賱丕 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賴 賵賱丕 賷爻鬲賮賷丿 賲賳賴 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 亘賷卅鬲賴責
丕賱氐乇丕毓 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 賵丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 亘爻亘亘 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱賲爻賲賷丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 賵"丕賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 丕賱卮賷亍 賮乇毓 毓賳 鬲氐賵乇賴"..
賵丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀賴賲 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賱 丕賱賱睾丞 賲乇丌丞 賱毓賯賱賳丕 賵孬賯丕賮鬲賳丕 兀賲 毓丿爻丞 賳乇賶 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕責 賲賳 賷鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱丌禺乇責
賲丕 毓賱賷賳丕.. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賵氐賱 賱賱亘丨孬 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱毓賯賱.
November 27, 2016
Deutscher's explanations were long-winded and redundant (and tautological), and his lowbrow jabs at linguistic scholars were off-putting to me. Planning to reading John McWhorter's The Language Hoax soon.
December 14, 2012
This digressive examination of whether and, if so, how a speaker's language structures his/her thoughts contains two interesting arguments bundled with amusing anecdotes about odd languages and linguists. Some of the descriptions of non-Western languages, and even of Western languages (English among them) at earlier stages of development, show truly surprising ways of putting together information, such as numbers of tenses, whether person and time of action are included in verb or noun or in separate words (as in modern English), and even the number of sounds available to speakers. Current consensus: No language is a prison of thought; the speaker of any language can find a way to express any idea, even if s/he has to invent or borrow new vocabulary for some of it. But some languages oblige the speaker to give information that is optional in other languages. The handiest example is the English pronouns; if I'm speaking of a person, I can't say "it" visited me, I have to let you know whether the person was "he" or "she". If we're speaking Turkish (or any of many other languages with unsexed pronouns), I can leave the sex of the person ambiguous if I choose 鈥� or add something if I want to let you know.
The first of the two interesting arguments is about the language of color. As William Gladstone discovered in his monumental study of Homer, there are no color references beyond "black" (meaning dark), "white" or light, and red in the Odyssey or Iliad. (I had had no idea that the politician Gladstone, before becoming PM, had been such an important scholar). The sea or sky are never described as blue, the word sometimes translated as "green" is really much vaguer (could be yellow, or could just mean "ripe"). Later research revealed that no ancient language, or modern language of preliterate simple societies, has a developed vocabulary for all the colors that you or I would see and name and that surround them in their environment. Gladstone and generations of later linguists assumed there was something wrong with primitive and ancient people's color vision. But no: Deutscher reports all the tests that have shown that even people who have no names for many color tones can see them perfectly well if they need to. They don't think of the sky as "blue" because it does not seem to them to be an object, just a vast emptiness, and as people become more aware of different colors blue is always (so far in all the studies) the last to be named, because it just doesn't appear much in their environment (except that empty sky). We today are far more sensitive to colors than our ancestors because of all the colored objects on the market and in our household and on our computer screens etc. For people a few centuries back, distinguishing between bright and dark and red (because of blood, symbolizing life) was quite enough.
The second argument is more amusing though less important: How assigning gender to inanimate objects affects, but only slightly, the way people perceive them. The German "die Brucke" is described as female, graceful, delicate, etc., the Spanish "el puente" as male, big, sturdy, the English "bridge" is simply a thing with no preconception about its delicacy or strength. But all three words refer to the same object. The sexual connotations of dish, spoon, sea, etc. are faint and of little consequence to most speakers in ordinary life, but can add flavor to the poetry in those languages that have not (as in English) lost their genders.
The first of the two interesting arguments is about the language of color. As William Gladstone discovered in his monumental study of Homer, there are no color references beyond "black" (meaning dark), "white" or light, and red in the Odyssey or Iliad. (I had had no idea that the politician Gladstone, before becoming PM, had been such an important scholar). The sea or sky are never described as blue, the word sometimes translated as "green" is really much vaguer (could be yellow, or could just mean "ripe"). Later research revealed that no ancient language, or modern language of preliterate simple societies, has a developed vocabulary for all the colors that you or I would see and name and that surround them in their environment. Gladstone and generations of later linguists assumed there was something wrong with primitive and ancient people's color vision. But no: Deutscher reports all the tests that have shown that even people who have no names for many color tones can see them perfectly well if they need to. They don't think of the sky as "blue" because it does not seem to them to be an object, just a vast emptiness, and as people become more aware of different colors blue is always (so far in all the studies) the last to be named, because it just doesn't appear much in their environment (except that empty sky). We today are far more sensitive to colors than our ancestors because of all the colored objects on the market and in our household and on our computer screens etc. For people a few centuries back, distinguishing between bright and dark and red (because of blood, symbolizing life) was quite enough.
The second argument is more amusing though less important: How assigning gender to inanimate objects affects, but only slightly, the way people perceive them. The German "die Brucke" is described as female, graceful, delicate, etc., the Spanish "el puente" as male, big, sturdy, the English "bridge" is simply a thing with no preconception about its delicacy or strength. But all three words refer to the same object. The sexual connotations of dish, spoon, sea, etc. are faint and of little consequence to most speakers in ordinary life, but can add flavor to the poetry in those languages that have not (as in English) lost their genders.
October 12, 2017
Thorough, challenging, clearly written & relatively engaging, good science; I learned a lot... but in the end unsatisfying. Turns out the author argues only for potential differences in perceptions of:
1. space (if your MT is Guugu Yimithrr you're extremely unlikely to get lost or lose your car in a parking garage), 2. gender (if you speak a gendered language like German or Spanish you can have more fun with poetry and tv advertising that plays on the associations of, for example, a male pine tree and a female palm), and 3. color (if you're Homer, you'll speak almost entirely of black, white, and red, meaning a "wine-dark sea" almost literally).
Of course he does call for more research, outlining some specific issues that need to be checked and suggesting ideas for experiments.
Color insert of key charts, a few line drawings, notes, bibliography, index, and an appendix of the science of seeing color w/ retina + brain (which I skipped, having read last year as much as I could manage of that topic). Notably, the MT of the author is Hebrew.
3/5 stars, rounded down because I'm disappointed that the title promises (imo) more than it delivers. However, I will consider more by the author.
Book darts:
Lightly sprinkled wit, including: "In their pronouncements on language, culture, and thought, it seems the big thinkers in their grandes oeuvres have not always risen much above little thinkers over their hors d'oeuvre."
And: "But ye readers of posterity, forgive us our ignorances, as we forgive those who were ignorant before us."
Calls Whorf "the most notorious of con men." Also explains that "the statement that 'all languages are equally complex' makes about as much sense as the assertion that 'all languages are equally cornflakes.'"
From the intro: "The aspects of culture that will be explored here are those where culture masquerades as human nature."
"The mark of an exceptional mind is its ability to question the self-evident."
Darwin "actually assigned the Lamarckian model a[n ancillary] role in evolution... believed that injuries and mutilations could be inherited." (Indeed... read the extended context.)
"Academics don't make careers by agreeing with one another."
Franz Boas taught us that grammar "determines those aspects of each experience that must be expressed." (If I say "I had dinner with a neighbor" I'm telling you that it happened in the past. Chinese would not have to specify the time. German, or French, or others would enforce an admission of the neighbor's gender.) "Such habits of speech can eventually settle into habits of mind with consequences for memory, or perception, or associations, or even practical skills."
The Matses' language enforces that the speaker describing something that happened use one of three past tenses that reveal the time distant, *and* reveal *how* she knows it happened *and* how long ago she learned/ discovered/ guessed that it happened. I think that politics (national, local, or 'office') and other discourse would be enhanced if dominant languages had at least some of this complexity.
Kangaroo does not mean I don't understand. It means a particular type of large grey kangaroo. (Read the book for context or look it up.)
1. space (if your MT is Guugu Yimithrr you're extremely unlikely to get lost or lose your car in a parking garage), 2. gender (if you speak a gendered language like German or Spanish you can have more fun with poetry and tv advertising that plays on the associations of, for example, a male pine tree and a female palm), and 3. color (if you're Homer, you'll speak almost entirely of black, white, and red, meaning a "wine-dark sea" almost literally).
Of course he does call for more research, outlining some specific issues that need to be checked and suggesting ideas for experiments.
Color insert of key charts, a few line drawings, notes, bibliography, index, and an appendix of the science of seeing color w/ retina + brain (which I skipped, having read last year as much as I could manage of that topic). Notably, the MT of the author is Hebrew.
3/5 stars, rounded down because I'm disappointed that the title promises (imo) more than it delivers. However, I will consider more by the author.
Book darts:
Lightly sprinkled wit, including: "In their pronouncements on language, culture, and thought, it seems the big thinkers in their grandes oeuvres have not always risen much above little thinkers over their hors d'oeuvre."
And: "But ye readers of posterity, forgive us our ignorances, as we forgive those who were ignorant before us."
Calls Whorf "the most notorious of con men." Also explains that "the statement that 'all languages are equally complex' makes about as much sense as the assertion that 'all languages are equally cornflakes.'"
From the intro: "The aspects of culture that will be explored here are those where culture masquerades as human nature."
"The mark of an exceptional mind is its ability to question the self-evident."
Darwin "actually assigned the Lamarckian model a[n ancillary] role in evolution... believed that injuries and mutilations could be inherited." (Indeed... read the extended context.)
"Academics don't make careers by agreeing with one another."
Franz Boas taught us that grammar "determines those aspects of each experience that must be expressed." (If I say "I had dinner with a neighbor" I'm telling you that it happened in the past. Chinese would not have to specify the time. German, or French, or others would enforce an admission of the neighbor's gender.) "Such habits of speech can eventually settle into habits of mind with consequences for memory, or perception, or associations, or even practical skills."
The Matses' language enforces that the speaker describing something that happened use one of three past tenses that reveal the time distant, *and* reveal *how* she knows it happened *and* how long ago she learned/ discovered/ guessed that it happened. I think that politics (national, local, or 'office') and other discourse would be enhanced if dominant languages had at least some of this complexity.
Kangaroo does not mean I don't understand. It means a particular type of large grey kangaroo. (Read the book for context or look it up.)
November 18, 2015
賵 兀賳丕 兀賯乇兀 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賳鬲 兀馗賳賳賷 爻兀賰鬲亘 賲乇丕噩毓鬲賷 賱賴 亘丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 亘賲丕 兀賳賴 賰鬲亘 賮賷 丕賱兀氐賱 廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丕 ... 賵 賱賰賳賳賷 賱賲 兀卮毓乇 賵賱賵 賱賵賴賱丞 兀賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 鬲乇噩賲丞 賱廿鬲賯丕賳賴丕 丕賱卮丿賷丿 ... 賳爻禺鬲賷 賴賷 賲賳 爻賱爻賱丞 賰鬲亘 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 亘鬲乇噩賲丞 丨賳丕賳 毓亘丿 丕賱賲丨爻賳 賲馗賮乇 ... 賵 賱噩賵丿丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵 乇賵毓鬲賴丕 賵噩丿鬲賳賷 兀賰鬲亘 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丨鬲賶 賱丕 兀賴囟賲 丨賯賴丕 ..
賳賲乇 丕賱丌賳 賱賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丕賱匕賷 賷賳丕賯卮 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賱睾丞 亘丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 噩丿賱賷丞 毓賰爻 賰賱 賵丕丨丿丞 賱賱兀禺乇賶 ... 丕賱賲賲鬲丕夭 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賴 爻丕乇 毓亘乇 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱賲鬲毓丕乇囟丞 賲爻鬲禺賱氐丕 賲賳賴丕 賰賱賴丕 賲丕 賷毓賷賳賴 毓賱賶 丨賱 賱睾夭 丕賱賱睾丞 ... 賱賷亘賯賶 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賲賮鬲賵丨丕 賴賱 丨賯丕 鬲毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賱睾丞 賲賳馗丕乇丕 賱毓賵丕賱賲賳丕 責責責
賵 賱賰賳 丕賲鬲賷丕夭 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷賰賲賳 賮丨爻亘 賮賷 丕賱賰賲 丕賱賴丕卅賱 賱賱兀胤乇賵丨丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿賵乇 丨賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 亘賱 鬲鬲噩賱賶 賮乇丿丕賳賷鬲賴 賮賷 兀爻賱賵亘 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱爻丕禺乇 丕賱賲囟丨賰 賵 丕賱兀賴賲 賮賷 丨丿賷孬賴 毓賳 兀賱賷爻 賮賷 亘賱丕丿 丕賱毓噩丕卅亘 ... 賰鬲丕亘賷 丕賱賲賮囟賱...
賳賲乇 丕賱丌賳 賱賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丕賱匕賷 賷賳丕賯卮 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賱睾丞 亘丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 噩丿賱賷丞 毓賰爻 賰賱 賵丕丨丿丞 賱賱兀禺乇賶 ... 丕賱賲賲鬲丕夭 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賴 爻丕乇 毓亘乇 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱賲鬲毓丕乇囟丞 賲爻鬲禺賱氐丕 賲賳賴丕 賰賱賴丕 賲丕 賷毓賷賳賴 毓賱賶 丨賱 賱睾夭 丕賱賱睾丞 ... 賱賷亘賯賶 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賲賮鬲賵丨丕 賴賱 丨賯丕 鬲毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賱睾丞 賲賳馗丕乇丕 賱毓賵丕賱賲賳丕 責責責
賵 賱賰賳 丕賲鬲賷丕夭 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷賰賲賳 賮丨爻亘 賮賷 丕賱賰賲 丕賱賴丕卅賱 賱賱兀胤乇賵丨丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿賵乇 丨賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 亘賱 鬲鬲噩賱賶 賮乇丿丕賳賷鬲賴 賮賷 兀爻賱賵亘 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱爻丕禺乇 丕賱賲囟丨賰 賵 丕賱兀賴賲 賮賷 丨丿賷孬賴 毓賳 兀賱賷爻 賮賷 亘賱丕丿 丕賱毓噩丕卅亘 ... 賰鬲丕亘賷 丕賱賲賮囟賱...
May 25, 2012
Why say in 2 pages what you can say in 200? Some interesting ideas, but overall Deutscher goes on and on and on and on.. I'd skip everything but chapters 5-6.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 880 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.