Hi everyone, this is Arka.
Many times I have heard from a teacher of Hinduism that Sanskrit, the Latin of India, is a perfect language. Even its correct (non-anglicized version) of its name, Samskritam means, "that which is perfectly formed." Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for most teachers of religion, but can one language actually be better than another from a linguistic standpoint? In Language, Hayakawa talks about how language is the most refined form of symbolism, and it is true that there can be various levels of symbolism. For example, this blog is probably much less symbolic than writing from someone like Shakespeare. However, can an entire language be, "less symbolic" than another language. Even among students in the high school there is always a joking competition that Spanish is better than French or Latin beats all, etc, but in reality can this be true? Muslim proponents of Arabic claim that Arabic is the highest language as the Qu'ran is written in it, while the Catholic Church hold that Latin Mass is the correct way. While the reasons for supporting a language can be varied, such as cultural and historical, from a purely linguistic standpoint, can one language trump another?
Personally, I feel that one language can be more symbolic and better linguistically than another. For example, Sanskirt is most definitely more symbolic that many of the other languages in India. However, I could be completely wrong, and am interested to hear what other people have to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Responding to your question whether one language can trump another, I do not believe that it is possible. Languages are culturally tied to the land where they came from. The English developed English to communicate what they needed to communicate, as with the French, the Chinese, the Russian, etc. One language cannot be compared to another because each language is unique in its ability to express a thought. While many European languages have a Latin root and are similar (French, Spanish, Italian), each is unique and has unique characteristics that make it separate from the others.
When comparing one language from a linguistic/symbolic point of view, languages can be compared. Certainly it is easier in some languages to express a thought and form an opinion (and in general, to communicate). Certain languages are very formal and require much planning before speaking. In Japanese, for example, the are honorifics which are mandatory and suggest the hierarchy of respect. In French, the "Academie Francaise" has even been established to maintain a certain level of authenticity by not formally allowing certain foreign words to be incorporated in the language. I think that these 'personalities' of language make them all the more fascinating to study.
I agree with Ian that each language was formed to allow communication of what ever was necessary for the survival of a culture. In Language in Thought and Action the first chapter talks about how language is key for survival and how it enables one human to survive and learn from the experiences of another human's nervous system. Each language has base similarities in what is trying to be communicated, so one language is not necessarily "better" than another, just formed in varied manners to portray ideas and whatever is necessary.
Thinking abount symbolism of various languages, I believe that there are only different ways of expressing ideas, the ways and the ease with which ideas are illustrated differs from language to language. For example, I met a girl from Puerto Rico who reads the Harry Potter books in English rather than Spanish because they aren't as good and descriptive as they are in English.
Post a Comment