Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

lionsroar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#11

Post by BobaFloutist »

unscaled wrote: post #6

> When talking about someone or something external to you, Tibetan grammar forces you to express whether what you’re talking about is something you’ve experienced or seen with your own eyes, whether it’s an assumption you’re making, or if it’s something that is generally true to everyone else. The grammatical category the author describes here is called Evidentiality[1], and it's surprisingly rather common[2], but mo…

It's also worth mentioning that although English doesn't explicitly require you do do any of this, we generally have ways of conveying respect/familiarity (by tweaking the formality of our register).

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#12

Post by FredPret »

I learned English and honestly the only thing that happened was my life got 100 times better socially and professionally. My thinking is exactly the same.

The only cognitive skills I've noticed improving is my ability to play word games and figure out simple phrases in third languages when traveling, because I have two languages to reference when thinking about word origins and relationships.

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#13

Post by rramadass »

JoeDaDude wrote: post #5

I'm sure language learners all over have felt this way. Once one starts learning another tongue, one realizes that languages do not exist in isolation, they are part of a larger culture and the language comes with customs, traditions, norms, and even beliefs from that culture. In learning a language, you internalize that culture and, even if just a tiny bit, develop an identity as a member of that culture. Phoenix Ho…

Very True.

This is particularly true when one translates/studies philosophical texts where there are lots of abstract concepts to interpret and more often than not if one doesn't understand the culture and everything it entails, one will make a mess of it.

> In learning a language, you internalize that culture and, even if just a tiny bit, develop an identity as a member of that culture.

This actually explains how Indians practice "Unity in Diversity" via their shared culture. For example, i grew up learning 4 languages viz; Tamil (mother tongue and 1st language), Bengali (since i grew up in West Bengal), English (medium of instruction and 2nd language) and Hindi (3rd language in school). It has given me a certain breadth of mind to appreciate our differences and yet have a shared common identity. A lot of Indians have similar multiple language upbringing and hence it is one of the reasons we can adapt and be successful anywhere in the World.

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#14

Post by kjellsbells »

tiahura wrote: post #7

My understanding is that Chomsky formally proved that this is impossible, ie all languages are exactly equal.

Not sure about mathematically rigorous "proof", but a powerful theory of grammar at least. His claim is "true" in the sense of computation, ie the lowest level Chomsky grammar[1] is just like a Turing machine and consequently can generate anything.

But the analogy with computing languages also supplies a practical insight that isnt captured by the academic theory, ie that some concepts are easier to express in one language than another. If I'm inverting a matrix, I'd reach for Python over C for example.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#15

Post by ghotli »

tiahura wrote: post #7

My understanding is that Chomsky formally proved that this is impossible, ie all languages are exactly equal.

What is logic here against the subjective internal experience you're responding to. Do I have to hold an axiom true to believe the person describing their internal experience is specifically as Chomsky proved in the language of logic?

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#16

Post by ghotli »

ghotli wrote: post #15
tiahura wrote: post #7

My understanding is that Chomsky formally proved that this is impossible, ie all languages are exactly equal.

What is logic here against the subjective internal experience you're responding to. Do I have to hold an axiom true to believe the person describing their internal experience is specifically as Chomsky proved in the language of logic?

I'm actually glad you posted this because it reminded me of a quote from Wittgenstein's page on Wikipedia [1]

> According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language, all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all.[259] Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the "rough ground" of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: "The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear."

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#17

Post by rramadass »

tiahura wrote: post #7

My understanding is that Chomsky formally proved that this is impossible, ie all languages are exactly equal.

No, Chomsky did not "prove" anything.

His Theory of "Universal Grammar" is more of a pseudo-science. See the "criticism" section here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

Also see this article from Scientific American; Evidence Rebuts Chomsky’s Theory of Language Learning - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-c...

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#18

Post by calimoro78 »

FredPret wrote: post #12

I learned English and honestly the only thing that happened was my life got 100 times better socially and professionally. My thinking is exactly the same. The only cognitive skills I've noticed improving is my ability to play word games and figure out simple phrases in third languages when traveling, because I have two languages to reference when thinking about word origins and relationships.

Maybe English is not a mind-opening language :(

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#19

Post by ta988 »

ghotli wrote: post #16
ghotli wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is logic here against the subjective internal experience you're responding to. Do I have to hold an axiom true to believe the person describing their internal experience is specifically as Chomsky proved in the language of logic?

I'm actually glad you posted this because it reminded me of a quote from Wittgenstein's page on Wikipedia [1] > According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the condi…

Wittgenstein also had serious changes of opinions.

Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)

#20

Post by fuzztester »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #11
unscaled wrote: post #6

> When talking about someone or something external to you, Tibetan grammar forces you to express whether what you’re talking about is something you’ve experienced or seen with your own eyes, whether it’s an assumption you’re making, or if it’s something that is generally true to everyone else. The grammatical category the author describes here is called Evidentiality[1], and it's surprisingly rather common[2], but mo…

It's also worth mentioning that although English doesn't explicitly require you do do any of this, we generally have ways of conveying respect/familiarity (by tweaking the formality of our register).

>by tweaking the formality of our register).

what does register mean in this context? the tone of voice or something similar?

Post reply on HN