Do I understand you right that the 'classical' example of your point of
view is that (for instance) the inuit have a lot of words for snow and 'we'
have only one word, because snow has a completely different place in the
social existence of the inuit than in ours?
So the implication is that when you want to try to understand the language
of the other, you have to share his/her social life and way of thinking,
expressed in the way he/she talks.
This applies to 'the other' next to you and to 'others' living in a foreign
culture. What I am trying to frase every body knows of cause and sometimes
this principle is very well illustrated on this list.
But thinking about this subject I realize that what really puzzles me is
that we live in a world were English is _the_ language of global
communication, while it is probably less appt to that function in social
sciences. It seems to me that English is a beautifull language for poetry
and prose (I still recall the pleasure with which we learned Shakespeare by
head at school), but a difficult world language for social sciences.
This statement shoult not be taken personaly of cause. I have no intention
at all to question the contributions to science of members on and of this
list. I am just talking about the function of English in global
communication, which can be seen as an impovereshment. A world language
simply reduces our "playgrounds" on the one hand, on the other hand it
makes communication
possible. That is the contradiction.
Maybe these thoughts are just the product of my 'autistic' mind.
If so consider this note as not written.
Anna Strumphler,
Amsterdam.