Could it be that Tibetan is invented to translate Buddhism has something to do with it I wonder.
Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
71–80 of 90 posts
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the feeling, it's the same. But it's an important distinction. You cannot change "the people", but you can change yourself. And that is very different. In the first, you are subservient of something much larger than you, and the second is a world of possibilities. Turning your thinking around enables you to have your best possible experience of your own life - or so they say.
> In the first, you are subservient of something much larger than you, and the second is a world of possibilities. The latter is a much more grim perspective. What it means is that, if you've been putting all your effort, all your effort is still not enough, and you objectively suck and you will never stop being useless trash. But if you consider people as an unpredictable, unstoppable force, then it's much easier to…
Exactly like weather. Grimness has almost nothing to do with the subject here. What I want to communicate is specifically not about how the world is, but about what we do with our experience in it. And how we react to that experience, inside and outside. What I would like to put forward is that we cannot substantially change the world, or the people, but we can change ourselves, and with that, how we experience the world - and ourselves within it.
I would like to add that I'm not on a high horse here. I too suck at this. But I do think that it is a worthy effort, and something that is a Good Thing for the self, and to whom and whatever comes into contact with that person too.
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#73> 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…
Typical example in some slavic languages: singular/plural versions of "you". In official speech one almost never says singular "you" even to a single person -- instead using honorific plural "you". I wonder if it was probably the same in English, just at some point people became all too polite and stopped using "thou".
> […] In official speech one almost never says singular "you" […]
With a notable exception being addressing the sovereign (king/queen/tsar/etc) where the singular «you», «thou» and similar were used, in all languages. The sovereign was seen as a direct peer, the ultimate protector of the people and the last instance of appeal, and the connection was also perceived as deeply intimate.
The practice fell out of favour in England (I'm not sure when exactly but probably with the transition to the constitutional monarchy), although it lived on elsewhere in mainland Europe until the demise of all major monarchies.
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
>by tweaking the formality of our register). what does register mean in this context? the tone of voice or something similar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) Formal: "I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your invaluable assistance in this matter." Neutral: "Thank you so much for your help with this." Slang: "Thanks bro"
Thanks bro
;)
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) Formal: "I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your invaluable assistance in this matter." Neutral: "Thank you so much for your help with this." Slang: "Thanks bro"
This reminds me of a sketch by one of my favorite comedians, which roughly translates to this: "May i thank you for this nice cup of coffee?" "Go ahead" "I want to thank you for this nice cup of coffee." "Go ahead" "Thank you for this nice cup of coffee." "No thanks necessary" "But i explicitly wanted to give you my thanks!" "Sorry about that." "Well thanks for nothing!" "You're welcome"
thanks but no thanks.
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironic disdain: "I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your invaluable assistance in this matter."
"You've shown a complete lack of poor judgment. I have no confidence in your ability to screw things up. You are incompetent as a failure. You are at the very rock bottom of your future potential."
I see what you didn't do there.
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) Formal: "I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your invaluable assistance in this matter." Neutral: "Thank you so much for your help with this." Slang: "Thanks bro"
Levels of formality exist in most (if not all) natural languages, but the difference between what you've described above and a proper grammatical system is that the grammatical system is standardized, accurate and absolute. There are clear rules and clear formality levels involved. Think about tense for instance. In English you have 3 basic grammatical tenses that can be combined with an aspect (perfect aspect, conti…
>polite "desu",
ah so desu ka.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ah+so+desu+ka+meaning+in+eng...
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not quite true. It so happened that much of what has survived under the rubric "Hinduism" (itself an umbrella term for a whole gamut of philosophies, religious beliefs, rituals etc. and everything in between) has been through Sanskrit texts. It does not mean that all the concepts/ideas originated in that language domain. This is why you have the many schools of Hindu Philosophy categorized as orthodox (six re…
Its possible, but still points towards, as I said, an overall hierarchy rather than a given multiplicity.
There is no intrinsic "overall hierarchy" but merely a "a posteriori" appearance of one.
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its possible, but still points towards, as I said, an overall hierarchy rather than a given multiplicity.
There is no intrinsic "overall hierarchy" but merely a "a posteriori" appearance of one.
There is no thing in itself here either to which one might ascribe a particular quality. There is a history of violence expressed through the language itself; I am doing my analysis immanently. When I say hierarchy I don't mean hierarchy outside the text.
Re: Learning Tibetan changed the way I think (2023)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That pretty clearly forces every Guugu Yimithirr speaker to have to be constantly aware of the compass directions so they can clearly point at things, it's quite unsurprising that they are very good in instinctively knowing where the north is without a compass. Apparently you can't even greet someone unless you know the cardinal directions - an article I read in New Scientist claimed that a greeting is essentially t…
I saw a product that claims to train this skill. An anklet that vibrates periodically in the direction of north. No idea if it works.
The problem is that it doesn't really train it - in a way it's the opposite. I've heard about someone using a belt which vibrated like that. After using it for a while they felt completely lost without it and lost all feeling of direction.
You actually need to let your brain do this for you, external input stops that. Though of course it would be nice with something like that, in general, if you could actually rely 100% on it.. which you can't, with GPS (in cities the direction may suddenly switch, for example, due to buildings playing havoc with the signal)