LIMITATION OF LANGUAGES
Take a look at these sentences:
1. Roller coasters thrill some and scares many.
2. The Uzerduit was enquzed with Ojizra.
While you understood (1), you have no idea what (2) is. In the first sentence, you have understood the meaning of all the words whereas in the second, three words are unknown. You might be saying it properly (in the proper pronunciation), but it doesn't teach you anything.
What's a language? Language can only remind us of a previous experience. It does not teach anything new. The human mind and all the thoughts are just a bunch of experiences- language is a tool which reminds of an experience. For instance, if a person has never seen a cow all his life- every attempt of yours to describe a cow to him will eventually come short, unless he's actually seen one. That experience and the word "cow" will relate to each other. And henceforth, every mention of the word COW would remind him of that experience (of seeing a cow).
How would you describe a colour? Can you explain the difference between BLACK, WHITE, YELLOW, GREEN, BLUE, and RED? To a blind person, how would you explain the concept of colours in the first place? I know a person who is colour blind- he cannot differentiate between red and green. No amount of reasoning and logic in any language would make him understand that trees and blood are different in colour. Regardless of how proficient you are in your language, you would not be able to explain the colours. Just because, it is an experience of sight- an experience which can only be felt and not explained.
How would you describe the smell of something? Can you explain the differences between the smells of FISH, JASMINE, SMOKE, FOOD etc? You cannot. In a similar manner, would you be able to communicate the differences between various sounds? You cannot, by mere words, distinguish between the sound of a baby crying and that of a cuckoo. You can convey the message if the person already has heard a cry-baby and a cuckoo. But then, your message (language) will just remind him of his previous experience.
Same goes with the experiences related to sense of touch and that of intellect. Men will never be able to fully comprehend what "labour pain" is, for the simple fact that it occurs only to women during childbirth. No man has ever experienced it and hence no amount of explanation will accurately describe it to a man.
Can you describe the difference between the taste of the following items: Honey, Sugar, Jaggery(gur), Candy, and Cake. If one has to describe the taste, one common factor is the "sweetness". If all of them are sweet, then how do you describe the differences? Obviously, they all don't taste the same- yet they are all sweet. No amount of explanation in any language will ever be able to make one describe the taste. As a last resort, you'd be forced to taste the items and know the difference yourself- because that is the only way to "explain" the differences in the taste.
Positive interpretation through language is not possible while negative interpretation is possible but with the help of previous experience. You can say "honey does not taste like milk, honey does not taste like curd, honey does not taste like butter..." and so on (but again for those comparisons you should have had the experience of tasting curd, butter, milk etc). But to know exactly what honey tastes like, it is only possible by the experience of tasting it. So unless there is experience, language is nothing. It is as useful as statement(2) above- serves no purpose.
Mere alphabets cannot convey the truth and our personal experiences. Our language then, is as biased as our experiences. Language therefore is a tool to relate to the common experiences of a group of people. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Shakespeare was right.
1. Roller coasters thrill some and scares many.
2. The Uzerduit was enquzed with Ojizra.
While you understood (1), you have no idea what (2) is. In the first sentence, you have understood the meaning of all the words whereas in the second, three words are unknown. You might be saying it properly (in the proper pronunciation), but it doesn't teach you anything.
What's a language? Language can only remind us of a previous experience. It does not teach anything new. The human mind and all the thoughts are just a bunch of experiences- language is a tool which reminds of an experience. For instance, if a person has never seen a cow all his life- every attempt of yours to describe a cow to him will eventually come short, unless he's actually seen one. That experience and the word "cow" will relate to each other. And henceforth, every mention of the word COW would remind him of that experience (of seeing a cow).
How would you describe a colour? Can you explain the difference between BLACK, WHITE, YELLOW, GREEN, BLUE, and RED? To a blind person, how would you explain the concept of colours in the first place? I know a person who is colour blind- he cannot differentiate between red and green. No amount of reasoning and logic in any language would make him understand that trees and blood are different in colour. Regardless of how proficient you are in your language, you would not be able to explain the colours. Just because, it is an experience of sight- an experience which can only be felt and not explained.
How would you describe the smell of something? Can you explain the differences between the smells of FISH, JASMINE, SMOKE, FOOD etc? You cannot. In a similar manner, would you be able to communicate the differences between various sounds? You cannot, by mere words, distinguish between the sound of a baby crying and that of a cuckoo. You can convey the message if the person already has heard a cry-baby and a cuckoo. But then, your message (language) will just remind him of his previous experience.
Same goes with the experiences related to sense of touch and that of intellect. Men will never be able to fully comprehend what "labour pain" is, for the simple fact that it occurs only to women during childbirth. No man has ever experienced it and hence no amount of explanation will accurately describe it to a man.
Can you describe the difference between the taste of the following items: Honey, Sugar, Jaggery(gur), Candy, and Cake. If one has to describe the taste, one common factor is the "sweetness". If all of them are sweet, then how do you describe the differences? Obviously, they all don't taste the same- yet they are all sweet. No amount of explanation in any language will ever be able to make one describe the taste. As a last resort, you'd be forced to taste the items and know the difference yourself- because that is the only way to "explain" the differences in the taste.
Positive interpretation through language is not possible while negative interpretation is possible but with the help of previous experience. You can say "honey does not taste like milk, honey does not taste like curd, honey does not taste like butter..." and so on (but again for those comparisons you should have had the experience of tasting curd, butter, milk etc). But to know exactly what honey tastes like, it is only possible by the experience of tasting it. So unless there is experience, language is nothing. It is as useful as statement(2) above- serves no purpose.
Mere alphabets cannot convey the truth and our personal experiences. Our language then, is as biased as our experiences. Language therefore is a tool to relate to the common experiences of a group of people. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Shakespeare was right.
posted by SHAILENDRA at 5:33 PM
2 comments
