they say that iq has been going down in european peoples since history began

How desperate a (you) addict must you be to write bait this bad
This would be bad for /pol/ or /b/

>>25509943
probably Franz Boas and his interlocutors in social anthropology

>>25510021
Pictured in the OP is recently deceased author, feminist and CIA collaborator Gloria Steinem, who should be relevant for at least another couple of hours. There was also a thread on the noble savage which inspired me to start my own, only that one was about Moby Dick specifically

>>25509943
>because the language of a people is less advanced
First you'd need to give any sort of coherent definition of a more or less advanced language.
>there were old languages that didn't have gender- that didn't have "he" and "she"
That's most languages on Earth. Sex-based noun class is fairly rare, it just seems a lot more common than it is because Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afro-Asiatic had it and gave birth to several major world languages today.

>>25510045
>any sort of coherent definition
I'd point to concepts of which some are maybe harder to grasp than others and check for the term that the people have come up with to express them. "Left" and "right", as mentioned in the OP, are terms of a more advanced language than the one which has only "gavagai" where "gavagai" means "there" and is accompanied by finger pointing.
>Sex-based noun class is fairly rare
She was talking about pronouns

>>25510074
>I'd point to concepts of which some are maybe harder to grasp than others
Harder for whom?
>the one which has only "gavagai" where "gavagai" means "there" and is accompanied by finger pointing.
Is there such a language? If anything languages spoken by "primitive" people with "primitive" technology tend to be bigger on baroque grammatical mechanisms.
>She was talking about pronouns
Sex-based pronouns generally accompany sex-based noun classes, or else are a remnant of a language that used to have sex-based noun classes (like English). I do not know of a language that has distinct words for "he" and "she" but has never had masculine and feminine noun genders.

>>25509943
It's made up gobbledegook bullshit to obfuscate their true feelings towards everyone. They're anti human, but they praise non white people for PR reasons. Their feelings towards white people are how they actually feel towards humanity.

Not too complex, just grass is always greener. My western upbringing sucked and was wrong, so *points at random spot on globe* must secretly have the right of it! It's some childish shit.

>>25510081
Have you read the op you precious little twat? In some Amazonian languages, they say "towards the x" and "away from the x" and don't have words for "right" and "left" Have I not made that clear before? Will you next ask me who is the "they" in the second sentence?
Also why is "primitive" in quotation marks in your post? Is that some sort of denial that there are primitives out there?
You seem exactly the sort of person I ask about in the OP. Can you enlighten us to your motivations?

>>25510021
>Chimps and tries to shame instead of engaging on actual points raised
Leftist pottery

>>25509943
>You hear that too when there's talk of whatever South American tribe that has no words for left or right, but instead "towards the river" and "away from the river". Instead of nodding at a semi-interesting fun fact and maybe chuckling at the notion that a savage has to refer to his arm as "my arm that's closest to the river",
The Guugu Yimithirr speaking Aboriginal hears that the primitive Westerner must refer to his arms with such terms as "on this side of my body" and "on the other side of my body," and chuckles at their coarseness, wondering how they could possibly live with such directional confusion, knowing that in his tongue all directions are absolute, and his southwestern leg is always his southwestern leg and his north hand is always his north hand, no matter where he happens to be facing.

>>25509943
It's a fantasy of conherance. That there is some mysterious tribe out there with all the answers. It's the same as Jewish conspiracy, believing in God etc its all the same thing. It's a fantasy structured through language to generate meaning and tell you who you are in relation to the big other and what you want etc etc u fruit fags

>>25509943
Languages impose limitations on that cultures thoughts so it tells you what they value/believe and how/who controls them.

>>25510165
go seek asylum there if it's so much more advanced

>>25510074
>one that only has gavagai accompanied by finger pointing
most ooga booga languages have like seventy words for proximal/distal/medial locative pronouns and shit, because their morphology never gets simplified by other having to learn their languages. I don't think there are any languages except maybe piraha (which is a world-famous outlier in basically every linguistic category) that only have one word for "over there". as the other anon said languages spoken by "primitive" people are usually downright baroque to the point that they're almost impossible to learn by outsiders. navajo is the most famous example

>>25510101
And which would you find easier- to use left and right or to constantly keep track of which way is north?

>>25510288
NTA but I find orienting myself using the compasspoints is unironically easier than left and right

>>25510250
Kek you know I caught you out don't you
>>25510288
nta but no difficulty in using absolute direction if it's all you ever knew. It'd be easier for me to use left and right, but that's because I didn't grow up speaking a language with absolute direction instead of relative direction. Imagine we were all speaking Chinese right now, and someone talked about how English verbs are always tense-bound, and you said "what would you find easier, just saying a verb or having to constantly figure out when the action was happening and apply irregular conjugation rules on the fly?" That's what we do right now without thinking about it, so I imagine absolute directional terms work the same way if you're raised with them

>>25510678
Oh for sure- my point is that their way of doing is not objectively more complicated but it's not objectively simpler either.

>>25510678
>>25510165
I don't get it. The fuck do you mean there is no difficulty in absolute directions? How would you be able to orientate yourself to true north at any given time without a compass? This isn't a skill one can just learn, otherwise sailors of old would all have learnt this and wouldn't have had to rely on navigating by the stars.
And even if aboriginals have some unique way of figuring out true north quickly, it would certainly never be quick enough to say work in a situation where you have a traffic system where you need to react quickly to right-of-way rules etc. So it would be completely useless for any society that invented the wheel + the car engine.

>>25510081
>language that has distinct words for "he" and "she" but has never had masculine and feminine noun genders
I would say Japanese, but the etymologies of "Kare" and "Kanojo" ("He" and "She" respectively) mention that their usage as gendered pronouns were influenced by European languages. Not sure if those developments may be considered "natural" enough.

>>25510165
Oh, so you're doing the thing I decried in the OP where you call the civilization that has not only developed the technology to travel to the savages but which also takes strides to understand their language of clicks and hums and scrutinises them as someone with a microscope studies creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water more primitive than the examined one. In the end, I can at least sleep easy knowing that while I do say "to the right of me"- for I operate in roofed houses built of brick and have not always access to the position of the sun- my language has also developed terms for cardinal points.
>>25510678
>Kek you know I caught you out don't you
That wasn't me saying that, though you do manifest the qualities which the Feminist in the OP does, who ought to be have been encouraged to live in India and see just how much more peaceful a society is when gender roles aren't polarized. "India, women's paradise" I often call it.
The overarching point is that those societies are clearly and objectively underdeveloped and that rudimentariness reflects in their language. If you don't need a term for "fifty years from now", I suppose, carry on...

>>25510873
The point is, they don't have to live by your stupid rules, retard. Why can't you midwits get that? They don't need to live in an apartment or pay rent and taxes. That's where the notion of 'noble' comes from.

>>25510029
Jewish

>>25510931
They then risk enslavement and annihilation and it is only due to the law of the noble that this doesn't happen (anymore). But this is me giving a material critique of their state of existence. There are many more spiritual ones which I'm sure don't concern you. Funny- with your antipathy towards Western norms and ethics you shouldn't even have grounds to disagree with their total death.

>>25510950
How noble of you to be concerned for their safety.

>>25510972
Got an argument?

>>25510873
>How would you be able to orientate yourself to true north at any given time without a compass?
If you're in a even slightly familiar area or even outside not on the open ocean, you probably do this automatically without thinking, at least I realized I do. I never really noticed that I do this until I met my wife, who is so unable to do this I suspected she may be secretly retarded or autistic.

>>25509943
in the indian places with no word for he and she did they woman still cook and clean?

>>25511080
She was sponsored by the CIA :)

>>25509943
It's all rooted in white guilt. White people hold themselves back constantly to make everyone else feel equal. Women especially are taken in by it. I don't think white women can tolerate, existentially, being so much more beautiful than other people. They have no choice but to make themselves uglier in deference to this guilt.

>>25509943
Press S to spit

>>25510873
>How would you be able to orientate yourself to true north at any given time without a compass?
The Southern Cross is in the southern hemisphere. Opposite of that is true north. Sun always rises in the east. Opposite of that is west. This is how you get the cardinal directions. It's just practice after that
>This isn't a skill one can just learn, otherwise sailors of old would all have learnt this and wouldn't have had to rely on navigating by the stars
I'm not saying something dumb like "they always know EXACTLY where they are at ALL TIMES and NEVER GET LOST," I'm saying that they have very precise ways to refer to directionality that Western languages generally don't have. This doesn't mean they're never mistaken
>it would certainly never be quick enough to [work in a complex situation]
Imagine you're a native Chinese speaker. "Even if English speakers have some unique way of immediately determining when a given action happened relative to the verb's object, it could never possibly be quick enough to work in a scenario where an English speaker must describe the actions of several different people, who all performed actions at different times, whether in a long sentence with several subordinate clauses or a short burst of individual sentences in one paragraph, let alone conjugating verbs with no immediately discernible object, or an implied object, or situations where the verb ought to impart intentionality, uncertainty, possibility, or definitiveness -- it would never be possible!"
>>25510929
What language someone speaks has very little bearing on how primitive or developed a society is; that's due to other factors. That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you appear to have such a strong immune reaction to this idea. You can accept this idea and still think you're better than aboriginals because you have a computer without contradiction

you lost.

>>25511527
>What language someone speaks has very little bearing on how primitive or developed a society is
What language one speaks does not correlate to the primitive status of a given population, but the language that is developed within said population is indicative of how advanced the society is. It's an obvious fact which I'm surprised you reject. Though I suppose you haven't even overtly rejected anything, you've merely twisted my words in an attempt to render them meaningless.
> I'm not sure why you appear to have such a strong immune reaction to this idea. You can accept this idea and still think you're better than aboriginals because you have a computer without contradiction
You seem to reject the idea itself that aboriginal societies are primitive, indeed that primitiveness is something that exists- since you've put primitive in quotes before. I would wonder instead why YOU seem to dance around the topic. I'd ask you to name a few qualities which correlate to a primitive society, respectively an advanced one, and then we'll check whether terms exist in their languages which describe things related to those qualities, and we can verify which language is more advanced by this standard. I've pointed to terms having to do with the future, for example, the rest is up to you.
>>25510165
>The Guugu Yimithirr speaking Aboriginal hears that the primitive Westerner must refer to his arms with such terms as "on this side of my body" and "on the other side of my body," and chuckles at their coarseness, wondering how they could possibly live with such directional confusion, knowing that in his tongue all directions are absolute, and his southwestern leg is always his southwestern leg and his north hand is always his north hand, no matter where he happens to be facing.
Oh, but in your last post you've admitted to this being a brute and banal way for one to orient him or herself.

>>25511505
S

>>25511701
>but the language that is developed within said population is indicative of how advanced the society is
This is just something you're claiming is true. There's no particular reason to think it is true. Navajo's a good example here; they speak/spoke a far, far more complex language than English where noun cases are done through particles, nouns have strict order in degree of intimacy, verbs are highly morphological, nouns have several different kinds of animacy that must be expressed, etc etc. If a native tribe's savage in their actions and society, and that's because their language is too simple, do we conclude that Navajo societies are more advanced or better than ours because of their tongue's complexity? No, that would be ridiculous
>you've merely twisted my words in an attempt to render them meaningless
No, I'm explaining why what you're saying doesn't make sense
>You seem to reject the idea itself that aboriginal societies are primitive, indeed that primitiveness is something that exists
I don't think this idea makes a lot of sense, but that's a separate conversation. It doesn't matter for the point I'm trying to make. I can accept this framing and nothing about what I'm saying changes. Ok, aboriginals are backwards, savage brutes. Accepted for the sake of argument. This has zero correlation to their language
>I'd ask you to name a few qualities which correlate to a primitive society, respectively an advanced one, and then we'll check whether terms exist in their languages which describe things related to those qualities, and we can verify which language is more advanced by this standard
This is just a retarded way of looking at it. Try not to allow yourself sloppy thinking here, you're better than this. Please don't say something along the lines of "ha you can't answer it so I'm right so there!," I'm saying that the question isn't even wrong. It doesn't make sense to ask it because it presupposes the connection between language/advancedness, which is exactly what's at issue in this conversation
>but in your last post you've admitted to this being a brute and banal way for one to orient him or herself
No, that's not what that post is doing. That post is trying to get you (or the other anon, not sure if I'm talking to the same person) to understand that applying your own criteria against English makes English look brute and banal by comparison. The point is to illustrate that we can do this with any two language parings;
>Language W has no baked in Concept X like Language X does, so Language W is dumb, so its speakers are savages!
>Well, Language X has no baked in Concept W like Language W does, so by that logic I guess that means Language X is dumb, and its speakers are savages?
Do you see the problem now?

>>25512180
>they speak/spoke a far, far more complex language than English where noun cases are done through particles
>No, I'm explaining why what you're saying doesn't make sense
Ha. You keep going back to these tricks and they never work and I don't know why you bother. To showcase your knowledge? I have never claimed that complexity of language with regards to morphology has to do with how advanced said language is.
Refer henceforth please only to my argument that what indicates the level of advancement in language is the sort of terms invented and used to express concepts and other abstract things. Things which I've mentioned before, like some that relate to long-term planning, for example.
A lack of terms and concepts interlink in pointing to primitiveness in language and society.
>I don't think this idea makes a lot of sense, but that's a separate conversation
Sure it does, and no it's not, if the topic is specifically primitive vs advanced language and society. If you reject that such things exist at all, we can end here I suppose.
>you're better than this.
Cease your false piety
>It doesn't make sense to ask it because it presupposes the connection between language/advancedness, which is exactly what's at issue in this conversation
You are presupposing that words have meaning in a discussion about meanings of words. That aside, again, arguments are easy to make with regards to the connection between language and a society's sophistication- but you reject from the start that some societies can be more advanced than others. Ridiculous!
>>Language W has no baked in Concept X like Language X does, so Language W is dumb, so its speakers are savages!
Right, hence my asking whether some concepts can more appropriately be considered savage than others, and my repeating that more words or complex morphology or syntax don't equate to advancement. More terms for cooking human flesh would point in the direction of savagery- my personal opinion.

>>25509943
What is she on about? Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Sanskrit all have words for man and woman, and specifically have masculine and feminine nouns? What am I even reading?

>>25512278
Despite their institutional credibility, all these foids ever were, were bad faith grifters

>>25509943
Of course it's a white woman saying that. Probably wants to murder her kids too.

>>25512250
Yes anon. EVERY linguist explicitly rejects the idea of primitive vs. advanced languages. You are arguing for something that has been disavowed by the entire field since the sixteenth century when the euro colonists got btfo by american indian languages; even the most racist, chuddiest reactionaries in the social sciences accept this. You are arguing from an eighth grader's viewpoint. The only measuring stick for "advancedness" that you've brought up has been ability to form abstract nouns, which EVERY LANGUAGE HAS. Case in point I just chose this completely random abo language Diyari off a list and found the word "kartyimalkani" which means "translation". I looked up some other words in that language and found "ngundripalha" which means "to think about for the benefit of someone else". Abstract enough for you? If not, give me an example of a marker of a language's advancedness, and I'll show you that some backwater savages have it

File: IMG_20260905_040633.jpg (972 KB, 1080x1769)

972 KB JPG

>>25512446
>EVERY linguist explicitly rejects the idea of primitive vs. advanced languages. You are arguing for something that has been disavowed by the entire field
Well I'll be damned- if Chomsky said so!
Just kidding, obviously that's not the case. Your hormonal rage starts to betray your nature and you start lying without shame- that's your last resort? The previous misdirections were at least a bit more sophisticated.
>that you've brought up has been ability to form abstract nouns
Not true. Read again.
>Case in point I just chose this completely random abo language
A language that doesn't have a term for "promise" is an inferior language of a primitive society. Some languages might have a term for that and lack others. Some have an excessive amount of terms for describing the taste of human flesh. These are all things I've said before.
>If not, give me an example of a marker of a language's advancedness, and I'll show you that some backwater savages have it
How about quantum mechanics?:)

>>25512484
"quantum" and "mechanics" are latin borrowings. You are retarded and I shan't be replying to you any longer.

>>25512250
>Cease your false piety
No, I meant "you're more intelligent than this," not "you're morally better." Very funny that I have to explain this to you now though lol
>You keep going back to these tricks
Again, nobody's trying to trick you. You're experiencing it as "being tricked" because you've never actually thought about this before, you're just saying something you think sounds intelligent. I can tell you've never actually thought about this before because everything I'm saying could be thought of by basically anyone with about 10 seconds of consideration. If you'd thought about what you were saying, you'd have better counterarguments. You're capable of thinking harder about your argument, but you've let hatred and contempt make you lazy and retarded
>what indicates the level of advancement in language is the sort of terms invented and used to express concepts and other abstract things. Things which I've mentioned before, like some that relate to long-term planning
Chinese doesn't have concepts like "tensed verbs". By your own logic, this should make it difficult for the Chinese to engage in long-term planning. Yet this isn't what we see. English has no word for the concept of "the day after tomorrow." This should make it difficult for English speakers to engage in long-term planning. Yet this isn't what we see. This is what I meant by "you're better than this"
>If you reject that such things exist at all, we can end here I suppose
I'll concede it again. The aboriginals (or other native populations, whatever) are backwards, brutal savages, sure. This has zero bearing on their language
>You are presupposing that words have meaning in a discussion about meanings of words
I legitimately have no idea what point you think you're making. I'm not trying to score a point here, I genuinely don't know what you think this is doing
>arguments are easy to make with regards to the connection between language and a society's sophistication
You're not making an argument. All you're saying is "savages speak languages that exhibit features not present in English, so it must be their language." This is an assertion, not an argument. I've given strong reasons to think this isn't the case, using your own assertion's logic, and you've done nothing but repeat the assertion
>hence my asking whether some concepts can more appropriately be considered savage than others, and my repeating that more words or complex morphology or syntax don't equate to advancement. More terms for cooking human flesh would point in the direction of savagery
Sure, cannibalism is savage. I'd say that injuring another person is savage. Any reasonable person would agree that injuring others is a savage thing to do, traditionally speaking, and civilized people use words to settle their differences. Then I would rattle off a long list of words like "shoot, stab, poison, punch, kill, maim, torture, hogtie, garrotte, spear, burn, immolate, hit, slap" etc. Do you see the problem now?

>>25512484
>quantum mechanics
it's usually just "quantum mechanics" said in the local language's accent or pronunciation, with some relatively minor spelling changes
>aha that proves what I'm saying because they have to import the concept from
like >>25512548 said, we get them from latin
>aha but that still proves what I'm saying because the glorious romans were
it comes from "quantus," meaning "how much, what quantity," and the ancient greek "mēkhanē," meaning "tool, device," which the romans borrowed and rendered as "mechanicus," meaning "related to machines, tools, devices." you're retarded

>>25512446
>EVERY linguist explicitly rejects the idea of primitive vs. advanced languages.
they'd lose their jobs if they didn't.

you could be a nobel winner among nobel winners like Watson and if you state politically incorrect science, you will lose your career, funding, life, etc.

>>25512873
>I'm right!
>and if people who study this their whole lives say I'm wrong
>it's because they're scared to say I'm right!
awfully convenient for you, isn't it?

>>25512894
so? incredulity is not an argument. was Watson wrong? did he not spend his whole life studying genetics?

I'm not even the anon you were arguing with. Just had to drop in to confirm you're a bad faith scumfuck.

>>25512899
not the anon you're replying to either
>misses the point
am I the only person on this board who's actually read nietzsche? the idea I'm trying to get you to understand is that you should strongly distrust a line of thinking that has a strong origin story or motivation other than pure reason. in this case, you should sharply distrust your way of thinking about it because it's strongly self-flattering and self-sealing. any possible objection to it can be routed to the "well that's just because they're scared to say the truth" response, and underneath that is the "I'm a brave truth-teller among scared sheeple" idea. does this mean what you're saying is automatically wrong? no. does it mean it's awfully convenient for you? yes, which gives good reason to distrust it. if you want me to think watson's right you have to do better than what you've said

>>25512915
nietzsche was a retard, who cares.

>if you want me to think watson's right you have to do better than what you've said
no wonder you like the poet philospher onanist. You're a dipshit without a basic grasp on logic and argument, either.

>>25512924
>Watson was right because everyone said he was wrong!
>huh, that's awfully convenient for you
>so? that's not an argument
>ok, your argument for why he's right is a very bad argument for these reasons
>oh yeah? oh yeah? well uhh you're retarded and uhh you're a dipshit
lol

>>25512933
cool headcanon. you know other people can just scroll up and read you being a tangled up retard without a clue

>>25511080
Yes, and they also had tranny-like members of the tribe that were considered third gender. The West is the most progressive place that has ever existed and that annoys them.

>>25512873
>>25512894
>>25512899
>>25512915
>>25512924
>>25512933
>>25512935
Whoa whoa whoa, guys, why the language?
All of these exchanges have been meaningless. The claim was "EVERY linguist explicitly rejects the idea of primitive vs. advanced languages". It was disproven in the next post >>25512484
Picrel showed at least one who didn't. The tranny never acknowledged it because he didn't like quantum mechanics, but don't act as though the refutation hadn't been given.

>>25512615
>No, I meant "you're more intelligent than this," not "you're morally better." Very funny that I have to explain this to you now though lol
If it strikes you as funny perhaps you've misunderstood and ought to read again.
>Again, nobody's trying to trick you.
>Chinese doesn't have concepts like "tensed verbs"
If you assure me that there's no trickery at play, and in the next paragraph you go back to speaking about morphology even though I've said from the very start and repeated multiple times that it has no bearing on the advanced status of a language for the sake of this argument, I suppose I'll question your intelligence and not your integrity. It's a matter of lexicon, not grammar, I repeat to you again.
>English has no word for the concept of "the day after tomorrow."
It doesn't have a singular word, but it does have a term: "the day after tomorrow". The concept can be expressed through that phrase. My native Romanian and I assume a majority of the other languages of the world have no word to express the concept of cringe, or other internet slang. This concept cannot be expressed at all within the boundaries of this language, unlike notions of future in Chinese or "the day after tomorrow" in English. I hope sincerely this explanation is helpful.
>The aboriginals are (primitive)
Why then, if one society is primitive, are you reluctant to admit also that features of that society are or can be primitive as well? Some definitely can: art, technology, education systems- why not language?
>I legitimately have no idea what point you think you're making.
You were accusing me of presupposing the thing in question, I merely pointed out that you're doing the same thing.
>All you're saying is "savages speak languages that exhibit features not present in English, so it must be their language."
That is dishonest. I'm saying that the languages of savages exhibit and materialize that same sort type of savagery. My arguments were with regards to vocabulary, "a cannibalistic (savage) society will have in their language more terms which have to do with cannibalism (savagery) and fewer terms which have to do with long-term planning (sophistication)".
I have never made (can't be bothered to check- maybe I have in passing) claims that morphology has to do with it- I would have been liable to, but I chose not to. Once you concede here though, we could discuss phonology if you want. I think I would have had greater success had I started with basing the primitive status of languages on the amount of clicking, growling and whistling present.
>I'd say that injuring another person is savage. Any reasonable person would agree that injuring others is a savage thing to do
Hahaha, is that the case? Truly? You'll understand if I don't engage with your fallacious argument, other than to point out that you equivocate on "savage".

>>25510873
>And even if aboriginals have some unique way of figuring out true north quickly, it would certainly never be quick enough to say work in a situation where you have a traffic system where you need to react quickly to right-of-way rules etc. So it would be completely useless for any society that invented the wheel + the car engine.
The Austronesians sailed from Taiwan to Madagascar and possibly to the Americas (explaining the presence of sweet potatoes in the Pacific islands pre-columbian-exchange) by the wind, sun, and the stars (also by sensing ocean currents with their testicles).

ITT anons awakening to Chinese linguistic supremacy

>>25513169
I'm not trying to single you out, since you've only posted a fun fact, but for the life of me I can't understand who these oikophobic bleeding hearts ITT think they're fooling when talking about how the savages are unique in their looking at stars for guidance. Everybody does that! Everybody has done that, hence civilized societies still having and using terms to express cardinal points. The difference is, we developed past that, when we started inhabiting houses, for example, and not having access to knowledge of the position of the stars. We also have terms for "the x closest to the y", we just don't use them as often because we're not a primitive society speaking primitive tongues and we can say "the one to your right".

>>25509943
They are solipsists experiencing a lurching step towards theory of mind. The existence of another framework to explore ideas (their own ideas that they already had) is a fun surprise and a puzzle to explore (to reorganize their own worldview into). "Some languages don't have gendered grammar" is only a revelation to someone who has never before been interested in another language. What she's really saying here is "I just discovered that some people are different, but have not yet realized how deep the differences run", which is how she gets to her "we are not ranked" nonsense at the end when talking about a country with a rigid caste system.

>>25512278
>>I came to understand that there were old languages that didn't have gender
>But there were languages that did have gender! I am very smart.

Gendered nouns Ancient Greek and Sanskrit share a common origin, so that is a poor set of examples.

>>25513292
I've considered this as well. I notice it too in peers of mine, but I've also always attributed to the means by which this manifests profound resentment, some times justified but oftentimes not.
I first had this thought in college, where I noticed that my colleagues most likely to frequent gay bars and pride parades all hailed from the countryside, and were almost exclusively female. I question that they had ever encountered meaningful homophobia, but their LGBT militancy, paired of course with vague support for nondescript types of socialism and unrelenting repeating of feminist slogans, all amalgamated into an incoherent sludge, was the antithesis to, not merely the tyrannical and pseudo-traditional worldview their parents would have been liable to impose onto them, but also to the verifiably loathsome conditions in which they had been brought up, lacking indoor plumbing, central heating, toilets and electricity, let alone paved roads, parks and the opportunity for growth, and the integration of that perspective is not fully unjustifiable. They were promiscuous and rebellious and crass and positively unladylike, and purposefully so and not out of sincere desire, but out of bitterness that stemmed out of their hatred for their upbringing and the microcosm in which they'd developed, and had decided that everything to do with that ought suffer disregard and inversion if not outright destruction.
This manifests within functionaries I've interacted with as well: the ladies at the what should have been defunct postal office who'd file their nails in defiance to the thirty single filed people awaiting their turn at the counter, the clerks in the university secretariat who'd scream at young and impressionable girls confused with the outdated and inane document filing process (but never at the robust and confident young men), and all other manners of peasants who've left their impoverished village after having received jobs and titles based on relations and bribes.
I had an experience with an old lady shelf stocker which left a mark on me: I apologized for disturbing her then asked her in my most mild and melancholy approach where whatever item was, and before I could finish my question she burst: It's not here anymore! I straightened my back and puffed out my chest and replied in a similar tone, "I can see it's not here! Is it out of stock or merely moved?" She turned polite and meek like a punished dog, apologized and went to look for it. People like her respond positively only to authority, maybe intrinsically so.
I think that this sort of spirit possesses all revolutionaries, but chiefly feminists, who not only begrudge their perceived lower status as women, but have also been encouraged to integrate as truth that it indeed is real, and to rebel against it without question. I was reading Notes from the Underground at the time, maybe this had shaped my thinking and approach.

>>25513181
yeah no thanks

>>25513066
>pretending he didn't think I meant "more intelligent"
Come on >>25512180;
>Try not to allow yourself sloppy thinking here, you're better than this.
>speaking about morphology... I've never made claims that morphology has anything to do with it
This is why I specified "the concept of "tensed verbs"" and didn't just say "verb tense." I'm trying to show you that your distinction between concept and grammar, or concept and morphology, doesn't make sense. You're asking me to believe the concepts a language has terms for can shape its speakers to the point of having an appreciable impact (or dominating influence) on their savagery, but morphology, which itself inherently carries conceptual freight, is exempt because it is? Again, you're smarter than this. If the 1st is true so is the 2nd
>english has no singular word, but it does have a term: "the day after tomorrow" but my native Romanian has no word for "cringe"
Ok, so English has no singular word that means "the day after tomorrow," just as Romanian has no singular word for "cringe." And yet English speakers can understand the concept of "the day after tomorrow," just as Romanian speakers can understand the concept of "cringe." It might take a few words to translate it into Romanian, it might take a few phrases, hell, it might take a few sentences, but the concept can be brought over without the word. This should be a screamingly loud indication that your entire approach is misguided. Unless you want to bite the bullet and say that your fellow countrymen can't possibly understand the concept of "cringe" without learning English, but I hope I don't have to explain to you why this is dumb
>if some features of a society can be primitive, why not language
How would we determine what makes a primitive language? Your criteria (make a list of terms for primitive concepts, add them up, if there's a lot then it's a primitive language) is just idiotic for reasons I've already demonstrated. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it is. Any criteria we could use to determine what makes a primitive language will have wide, sweeping exceptions, and these exceptions will be so broad that the criteria becomes useless
>you're also presupposing the thing in question
No. You presupposed that there was a connection between a language and the primitiveness of its speakers. I pointed this out. You said that I was presupposing words had meaning. That's a different thing
>this is dishonest...
No, I'm taking your own argument and applying it to English
>is that [injuring another person is savage... injuring others is a savage thing to do] the case? Truly?
Unless you're prepared to say that frequent interpersonal violence in place of settling disputes with reason/words isn't a marker of a primitive/savage society, which would be very stupid, you have to give this up
>my arguments were with regards to vocabulary
Every word I gave is vocabulary, anon. Words are vocabulary. Not sure what point you think you're making here

Primitive doesn't mean stupid, it means less refined which is fine if the people who speak said language use it to survive their own environment. It's the same thing with refined language users, they can't thrive outside their own environments without changing their language. This is the big misunderstanding in the debate, one anon salty that noble savage doesn't need to 'improve' their language in order to start paying rent and mortgages while the anon misses the point that they wouldn't survive a day living with these 'savages' because of what they've come to expect. Humans are not black and white, better vs worse doesn't exist. There was never one way to build civilization, it emerged multiple times in multiple places, heck thousands of languages survived the collapse of these civilizations, so I don't understand this retarded western insistence that the west is right or that the west won. No wonder most of you retards are right wing, you can't think outside your conservative bubbles, most of you have never left their countries leave alone their hometowns.

>>25514775
ooga booga

>>25514777
That means 'I am a tranny' in my language.

>>25514780
you are?

>>25514812
You said it first, tranny.

>>25514830
that's not what you're saying in my language

>>25514841
Now you get it, don't you? You were just pretending to be retarded.

>>25514857
i can't believe you keep calling yourself these things. wow

>>25514870
How kind of you to get concerned.

>>25514740
>pretending he didn't think I meant "more intelligent"
Right. What I was getting at has nothing to do with your judging my moral standing or not. It's piety because it's displaying humility and respect, it's false because you insult me in the same post- is what I was saying.
>This is why I specified "the concept of "tensed verbs"" and didn't just say "verb tense"
If that's the case, anon, then your original claim "(that) Chinese doesn't have concepts like "tensed verbs" ... should make it difficult for the Chinese to engage in long-term planning" is a non sequitur, for grammatical features themselves or concepts thereof have, in fact, nothing to do with the future or planning for it. Will you correct your initial claim?
>the concepts a language has terms for can shape its speakers (...) but morphology, which itself inherently carries conceptual freight, is exempt because it is?
Not at all, and you can check below to a section of my post which you have slyly dismissed- but we'll get to it as well- where I say
>I have never made claims that morphology has to do with it- I would have been liable to, but I chose not to
I could make an argument from morphology, phonology etc. Merely for this discussion, though, I chose terms and concepts.
>English has no singular word that means "the day after tomorrow," just as Romanian has no singular word for "cringe"
No, not "just as" at all. Romanian has no term whatsoever- single worded or otherwise- for "cringe", while English does have a term for "the day after tomorrow". I could explain the concept to my grandmother, mentioning second-hand embarrassment and a specific type of physical reaction, and perhaps I could even make her understand its being used as an interjection by teenagers in post-ironic cynical online media- the same way I'd be liable to explain to a savage the concept of a promise, but explanations of concepts are not concepts themselves, and the fact would remain that the thought could not be expressed, like I said, within the boundaries of the language, until the concept is integrated and a term is created.
>the concept can be brought over without the word
It's striking that a philologue would say such a thing. “Dumneavoastră” is a second-person pronoun of politeness used to address a single person, despite taking a plural form. It's obvious that the concept underlying and expressed by this term cannot be properly expressed in English, as is the case with many others, else we wouldn't be complaining about different translations of books when, as an example, we see the term translated as "you sir(s)". "Băi" is an interjection I wouldn't even know how to define.
>Your criteria (make a list of terms for primitive concepts, add them up, if there's a lot then it's a primitive language)
More dishonesty, for the terms missing from the lexicon of a language are just as if not more indicative of the savagery of its speakers, as I've been sure to point out many times before.

>>25514740
>Any criteria we could use to determine what makes a primitive language will have wide, sweeping exceptions, and these exceptions will be so broad that the criteria becomes useless
Clusters do exist even if borders are sometimes fuzzy. Definitions are hard to come by as well and rarely do they exclude all that should be excluded and include all that should be included. Even with this said, though, I won't grant you your baseless assertion.
>No. You presupposed that there was a connection between a language and the primitiveness of its speakers. I pointed this out. You said that I was presupposing words had meaning. That's a different thing
What I was trying to get you to understand that infinite things are presupposed in any given discussion. But say we leave aside that admittedly unconventional philosophical idea and I grant you that you were entitled to reject the correlation that was in question.
>No, (it's not dishonest)
Sure it was. Your claim was that my argument was that "savages speak languages that exhibit features not present in English, so it must be their language." I never said nor implied such a thing. I went on to rephrase my argument and noticeably you've ignored it.
>Unless you're prepared to say that frequent interpersonal violence in place of settling disputes with reason/words isn't a marker of a primitive/savage society, which would be very stupid, you have to give this up
The fallacy is within your implication that all violence is savage and that all physical violence substitutes discourse, that there is only one type of violence etc. Well, that, and the greater one that "Injuring people is savage because every reasonable person would agree that injuring others is savage". This is children's argumentation, anon.
It's funny, I'd also have thought that of "shoot" points to sophistication, since it reminds of firearms, a hallmark of technology and advancement. This is true for bows and arrows as well, before you jump to correct me enthusiastically. Now, if we were to only have "chuck"...

>>25514775
>better vs worse doesn't exist
If you believe that there is no such thing as good or bad, there is no reason for you to engage not only in this discussion, but in any conversation or indeed action at all. Me arguing that that a way of life is better than another can have no effect on you if you reject that good exists in any capacity, so I wouldn't do that. I'd merely point to the inconsistency in you believing that while simultaneously saying
>is fine if the people who speak said language use it to survive their own environment
which seems to argue that surviving one's environment is something one ought to do. Of course I can say that one way of life increases one's chance of survival more than another, but rather I'd ask you, why is even survival "good"?

>>25510924
I don't get the impression they're all that common in colloquial speech. (In Japanese it's fairly easy for Alice and Bob to have a conversation about Sam without it coming to light that Alice thinks Sam is female and Bob thinks Sam is male. In English it's harder. In Hebrew it's functionally impossible. This has implications for literary translation.)

>>25511483
Speak for yourself, I'm not beautiful.

>>25513036
One a whole century ago. Show me a linguist- as in someone with an actual degree who works in academia, not a crank self-publishing out of their basement on academia.edu- working today who accepts the notion that there are "primitive" languages.

>>25513066
>y native Romanian and I assume a majority of the other languages of the world have no word to express the concept of cringe, or other internet slang. This concept cannot be expressed at all within the boundaries of this language, unlike notions of future in Chinese or "the day after tomorrow" in English. I hope sincerely this explanation is helpful.
Oh come on now, surely even if there isn't a single word for what English-speakers call "cringe" you can explain in a couple of sentences the concept you're trying to point at? Something like "the sort of statements or behavior that you feel vicariously embarrassed for the person making them"?

>>25514958
>and the fact would remain that the thought could not be expressed, like I said, within the boundaries of the language, until the concept is integrated and a term is created.
Surely once you've explained the concept you can refer back to it with a placeholder like "the concept I mentioned"?

>>25511505
S

>>25516333
>>25516358
I think you're the same poster. Take your time and read through the rest of the thread and see that both of these issues have been addressed.

>>25516400
I have read the whole thread. I can see now how the first has been addressed but I don't see where the second has.

>>25516323
>show me a priest who preaches against Christ's divinity
>all priests officially agree, therefore it is indisputibly true and even considering the alternative is naive and conspiracy-minded

Just read the whole thread after seeing it bounce up and down the catalog for a few days. The woketard anon is annoying but the Romanian anon is just being fucking retarded because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong about how he thinks about language. There. I solved it. We can all go home or talk about something else now.

>>25516400
>>25516358
>>25516387
>>25516409
In fact, I suppose for the second post you quote, I've not yet elaborated.
>once you've explained the concept you can refer back to it with a placeholder like "the concept I mentioned"?
I might do something like that but in such a situation I would be referring to my explanation of the concept and not the concept itself (like I said before). Consider the definition which you have given for "cringe", and then mine which I would give to my grandmother, and then figure out that, in fact, neither perfectly encompass what the native speaker who is immersed in the culture knows about the term. Concepts are definitionally abstract and as such can seldom be fully and perfectly defined.
"Cringe" is also a term I go to instinctively when such conversations arise, but note that I have brought up different concepts and indeed there are many more that I'm unaware of which are harder still to express.

>>25516436
you talk like a 19 year old who thinks he's way smarter than he actually is

i'd say it just represents a more primitive place where they can get away with what they want without having to go to the trouble of gaslighting people.

>>25516444
you talk like a faggot who sucks dicks and licks balls
what's the age range on this

>>25516451
>U SUCK DICKS N LICK BALLS!!!
yeah, 19 sounds about right kek

>>25516323
>anon. EVERY linguist explicitly rejects the idea of primitive vs. advanced languages. You are arguing for something that has been disavowed by the entire field since the sixteenth century
You capitalized "every" and sent me to do five centuries' worth of research. I managed to find a relevant linguist from a mere hundred years ago. Surely you're not backtracking like you've accused the other anon?
No, you're a false flagging troll. You have to be. You can't be the same guy.
>>25516468
Don't disregard my calling you faggot

>>25516481
"Rejects" is in the present tense. A linguist a hundred years ago is in the past and cannot do anything in the present tense.

>>25516432
/thread

Start with the greeks
>According to Stoic doctrine, Hellenes and barbarians are equal—both being children of God. A century after Alexander, Eratosthenes was able to assert that those who divided the entire human race into Hellenes and barbarians were mistaken; it was better to distinguish based on virtue and vice, for many Hellenes were wicked while many barbarians were cultivated (*asteioi*)—such as the Indians and Arians, as well as the Romans and Carthaginians with their admirable political systems.

>From there, it was but a short step to the idealization of barbarians. At play here was that longing—which at times afflicts any highly derivative and late-stage culture—for primordial states of being, which are most readily sought in distant lands.
t. Burckhardt

File: am 43.gif (1019 KB, 500x208)

1019 KB GIF

Didn't read the thread.
Just thought I'd say I am very disappointed at the size of it. Positive or negative, to care this much about so little of a person, while actual authors die and so little is said at their passing.
Like giving any attention to the damn frog poster after all these years. Shame.