Would a universal language break down the barriers to achieve of human communication? In an ideal world, everyone in the world could understand what another person is saying, regardless of where they were born.
Language is the expression of the reality that surrounds people in a certain place. Hard in the native language of a nomadic desert there a word to describe the ice little oxygen, the same way that an Eskimo not have verbal meanings for the types of sand dunes can form. Obviously, each of them could make up the fly a word to describe these realities so far from theirs, but it would get without losing the story surely lies beneath of that word, its etymology.
I think, for example, the word "entertainer." Today, it means that entertains both cultural meetings and the specialist in moving virtual beings on the screen. In both cases, a culture boring or without computers could invent a word for a newcomer traveler whose work outside it, but lost along the way certainly convey the concept of soul (or soul) to an object devoid of it, or a person with the spirit under the mood. An entertainer, almost etymology, has to be empathetic (even sympathetic): should be able to grasp (em) the psychology of the other person (the psyche, where "Psi" is again the Greek word for "soul") to go with it (sim) its "pathos", the path along which his emotions ("Emoti" is closely linked to movement, what makes us move acquire a soul and use it.)
From my point of view, it would be impossible for all people of the planet actually understood using a single language, because the little nuances of each word can mean a world to the person who speaks, and the person receiving (now I'm thinking of the title "Lost in Translation"). If even shared language to deeper levels of knowledge, two people may find that they are able to understand ...
What could communicate at least at a fairly tough and survival? Sure, but it is not necessary that a single language, but only some will understand. Generally, we share enough to understand human referents in the basic pointing and grunting, changing our mood expressions. For the rest, and personally, rather than a single language artificially expanded, rather learn the rudiments of the languages \u200b\u200bin which I had to dive to (this way) trying to really understand the spirit, the psychology of the inhabitants of that habitat, its soul.
PS: I wonder many couples have broken yesterday by a miscommunication. If you find any statistics, do me the favor to let me go.
Language is the expression of the reality that surrounds people in a certain place. Hard in the native language of a nomadic desert there a word to describe the ice little oxygen, the same way that an Eskimo not have verbal meanings for the types of sand dunes can form. Obviously, each of them could make up the fly a word to describe these realities so far from theirs, but it would get without losing the story surely lies beneath of that word, its etymology.
I think, for example, the word "entertainer." Today, it means that entertains both cultural meetings and the specialist in moving virtual beings on the screen. In both cases, a culture boring or without computers could invent a word for a newcomer traveler whose work outside it, but lost along the way certainly convey the concept of soul (or soul) to an object devoid of it, or a person with the spirit under the mood. An entertainer, almost etymology, has to be empathetic (even sympathetic): should be able to grasp (em) the psychology of the other person (the psyche, where "Psi" is again the Greek word for "soul") to go with it (sim) its "pathos", the path along which his emotions ("Emoti" is closely linked to movement, what makes us move acquire a soul and use it.)
From my point of view, it would be impossible for all people of the planet actually understood using a single language, because the little nuances of each word can mean a world to the person who speaks, and the person receiving (now I'm thinking of the title "Lost in Translation"). If even shared language to deeper levels of knowledge, two people may find that they are able to understand ...
What could communicate at least at a fairly tough and survival? Sure, but it is not necessary that a single language, but only some will understand. Generally, we share enough to understand human referents in the basic pointing and grunting, changing our mood expressions. For the rest, and personally, rather than a single language artificially expanded, rather learn the rudiments of the languages \u200b\u200bin which I had to dive to (this way) trying to really understand the spirit, the psychology of the inhabitants of that habitat, its soul.
PS: I wonder many couples have broken yesterday by a miscommunication. If you find any statistics, do me the favor to let me go.
0 comments:
Post a Comment