There's a word for that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have a pet peeve. A conversation that I have heard far too many times over the years. It is based in the idea that if a language doesn't have a word for something, that the people don't have that concept.

OK, sometimes that's true. No automobiles? Never heard of 'em? Then there's not going to be a word for something nobody's ever thought of. We didn't have a word for "spaceship" until we came up with the idea of spaceships, and even then we just took two words, one for the vast mystery of what's "out there" and one for a vessel that floats on the water, and glommed them together.

So what's up with the mythologies of people so simple that they don't have a word for, say, rape? Or a name for the color orange? Or words for numbers more than three? Does that actually mean they don't have those CONCEPTS?

In most cases, no; that's not what that means. Sure, in the case of equatorial people, they probably couldn't describe snow, but for many such words, the concept exists and can be described. So, Western civilization didn't call the color orange "orange" until the 16th century; they called it yellow-red. Does that mean that they didn't see orange? That they didn't know what it was? Fuck no. That's stupid. They saw the color as clearly as we see yellow-green before we know it's called chartreuse. And then someone comes along and says "That color's called chartreuse" and we go "Oh, cool."

Societies without a word for "rape" may call it, in their language, "assault and forced sexual penetration". People who don't have a word for nine may call it "Three threes". Sort of like we didn't really have a word for thirteen... we just combined three and ten. Does that mean we couldn't count above twelve? Or that we still can't?

My point here is that people need to examine their assumptions about language and concepts, and stop assuming that just because there appears to not be a word for something, that is by no means an indication that the concept doesn't exist or cannot be described. How many times in your life have you been thinking about something, and when you try to describe, say, a set of behaviors or assumptions to another person, they say "OH yeah, that's called "________".

And then you go "Oh cool, there's a word for that!"

[LMNO]

In support of this, I'd like to call upon the knowledge of any German speakers on the board... From what I can tell, a lot of their more complex words are simply amalgamations of smaller words, which is why you get words like "Rolltreppenbenutzungshinweise" which means, apparently, "rolling-stairs-use-tips" or "Tips for using the escalator".  Ok, that was a silly example.

I think the fallacy Nigel may be referring to is a "savage nobility" trope, where a certain ethnicity doesn't experience an aspect of what we tend to call "human nature" or (more formally) "people are assholes".  There's a fantasy that somewhere, there's a race of people who are closer to some sort of idealized paradise where everyone is nice to each other, in spite of biological and psychological evolutionary evidence to the contrary.

[hooplala]

Word.

I think sometimes it's not that people can't conceptualize the idea, more than its that they don't want to give it a name because it seems to legitimize it in some manner.  I have nothing to back that up, mind you, just an uneducated hunch on my part.

It reminds me of a speech from Six Feet Under, which touches on this idea and I suppose informed my "hunch" above in a sense, since it was an idea I had never really thought about:

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

[Epimetheus]

Agreed, Nigel.


On a similar subject...
I've noticed that when there's not a word for something, it tends to mean general lack of awareness that that concept/experience is common. This means a lot of "You do that too?!" moments between people, and a lot of laughs for stand-up comics who talk about the little quirks we all have but aren't often talked about.

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

I think that particular example is explained more by the fact that (historical) cultural norms dictate that women and children are weaker and therefore can be defined by a thing that has traumatized them, whereas men/parents (the "stronger" in both relationships) can rise above such happenings.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Word.

I think sometimes it's not that people can't conceptualize the idea, more than its that they don't want to give it a name because it seems to legitimize it in some manner.  I have nothing to back that up, mind you, just an uneducated hunch on my part.

It reminds me of a speech from Six Feet Under, which touches on this idea and I suppose informed my "hunch" above in a sense, since it was an idea I had never really thought about:

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

The word in English is bereft, in Hebrew shakhol. The English word has come to primarily refer to other types of loss over time, as being bereaved of children has become less common.

[hooplala]

Agreed, Nigel.


On a similar subject...
I've noticed that when there's not a word for something, it tends to mean general lack of awareness that that concept/experience is common. This means a lot of "You do that too?!" moments between people, and a lot of laughs for stand-up comics who talk about the little quirks we all have but aren't often talked about.

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

I think that particular example is explained more by the fact that (historical) cultural norms dictate that women and children are weaker and therefore can be defined by a thing that has traumatized them, whereas men/parents (the "stronger" in both relationships) can rise above such happenings.

How does that explain "windower"?

[Epimetheus]

Agreed, Nigel.


On a similar subject...
I've noticed that when there's not a word for something, it tends to mean general lack of awareness that that concept/experience is common. This means a lot of "You do that too?!" moments between people, and a lot of laughs for stand-up comics who talk about the little quirks we all have but aren't often talked about.

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

I think that particular example is explained more by the fact that (historical) cultural norms dictate that women and children are weaker and therefore can be defined by a thing that has traumatized them, whereas men/parents (the "stronger" in both relationships) can rise above such happenings.

How does that explain "widower"?

Fuck. Missed that. 

[hooplala]

Word.

I think sometimes it's not that people can't conceptualize the idea, more than its that they don't want to give it a name because it seems to legitimize it in some manner.  I have nothing to back that up, mind you, just an uneducated hunch on my part.

It reminds me of a speech from Six Feet Under, which touches on this idea and I suppose informed my "hunch" above in a sense, since it was an idea I had never really thought about:

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

The word in English is bereft, in Hebrew shakhol. The English word has come to primarily refer to other types of loss over time, as being bereaved of children has become less common.

Really?  My dictionary says the english word "bereave" comes from the Old English and originally meant to be deprived of something in general.  I have no idea about the Hebrew word though.

However if you are right, good to know.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Agreed, Nigel.


On a similar subject...
I've noticed that when there's not a word for something, it tends to mean general lack of awareness that that concept/experience is common. This means a lot of "You do that too?!" moments between people, and a lot of laughs for stand-up comics who talk about the little quirks we all have but aren't often talked about.

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

I think that particular example is explained more by the fact that (historical) cultural norms dictate that women and children are weaker and therefore can be defined by a thing that has traumatized them, whereas men/parents (the "stronger" in both relationships) can rise above such happenings.

Women and men both lose children.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

English has no direct translation for "chismosa", but we understand the concept.

[Jenne]

I can relate to this, as I have experienced what some would see as a cultural "disconnect" or lack of mutual verbiage to describe a common experience with someone from halfway around the world.  In Afghanistan, at least when I first met my husband, there was no word for "girlfriend."  You were either a prostitute, a relative, a fiancee or a wife.  If you were dating a man, you could not be called anything put a prostitute/lover/mistress, fiancee or wife.

This was very confining for me, for obvious reasons.  Especially as my husband, to save my reputation from all over Afghanistan (because news flies fast over there), he never told anyone about me until we were engaged.  And we were together for a long time before that happened.

Since Afghanistan has now been "invaded" by more Western visitors who have brought with them their customs and ways of living, I'm betting that right now there's a word in Afghanistan for "girlfriend," and I'm betting it sounds an awful lot like "girlfriend."  That's often how language works, by the way.  When a culture or society adopts a concept into its lexicon, they often adopt the word the concept was taken from, or the language it was popularized in.  (The French have notoriously hated this.)  That doesn't mean the concept/entity wasn't there before, but its accessibility can often be increased by using the less indigenous word.  I can postulate a bunch of reasons for this (highlighting it as a more foreign or new concept, etc.), but I am too tired to look it up to see what recent research says.

A good example is a new technological item that was created/invented in a certain language and so retains the verbal construct it was originally created in.  Often a lot of the actions surrounding the item show up as borrowed items as well.  "Car" and "parking" are two such examples that come to mind.

[BabylonHoruv]

In support of this, I'd like to call upon the knowledge of any German speakers on the board... From what I can tell, a lot of their more complex words are simply amalgamations of smaller words, which is why you get words like "Rolltreppenbenutzungshinweise" which means, apparently, "rolling-stairs-use-tips" or "Tips for using the escalator".  Ok, that was a silly example.

I think the fallacy Nigel may be referring to is a "savage nobility" trope, where a certain ethnicity doesn't experience an aspect of what we tend to call "human nature" or (more formally) "people are assholes".  There's a fantasy that somewhere, there's a race of people who are closer to some sort of idealized paradise where everyone is nice to each other, in spite of biological and psychological evolutionary evidence to the contrary.

German contains my favorite insult.  I don't remember the word itself, but I know that it means "someone who attempts to impregnate electrical sockets"  this insulting the person's intelligence and cock size both at once,with a handy, and painful sounding, metaphor.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Word.

I think sometimes it's not that people can't conceptualize the idea, more than its that they don't want to give it a name because it seems to legitimize it in some manner.  I have nothing to back that up, mind you, just an uneducated hunch on my part.

It reminds me of a speech from Six Feet Under, which touches on this idea and I suppose informed my "hunch" above in a sense, since it was an idea I had never really thought about:

You know what I find interesting? If you lose a spouse, you're called a widow or a widower. If you're a child and you lose your parents, then you're an orphan. But what's the word to describe a parent who loses a child?  I guess that's just too fucking awful to even have a name.

So, yeah, not that nobody understands that parents who lose a child exist, just something nobody really wants to think about enough to pin a word on it.

The word in English is bereft, in Hebrew shakhol. The English word has come to primarily refer to other types of loss over time, as being bereaved of children has become less common.

Really?  My dictionary says the english word "bereave" comes from the Old English and originally meant to be deprived of something in general.  I have no idea about the Hebrew word though.

However if you are right, good to know.

http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/bereft

Just as "widow" and "orphan" have other uses, it also means to be deprived in general, but it is the word for a parent who has lost their young, although that context is no longer primary.

This opens the door for another peeve of mine, though, which is when people say "There is no such" instead of "I don't know of".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In support of this, I'd like to call upon the knowledge of any German speakers on the board... From what I can tell, a lot of their more complex words are simply amalgamations of smaller words, which is why you get words like "Rolltreppenbenutzungshinweise" which means, apparently, "rolling-stairs-use-tips" or "Tips for using the escalator".  Ok, that was a silly example.

I think the fallacy Nigel may be referring to is a "savage nobility" trope, where a certain ethnicity doesn't experience an aspect of what we tend to call "human nature" or (more formally) "people are assholes".  There's a fantasy that somewhere, there's a race of people who are closer to some sort of idealized paradise where everyone is nice to each other, in spite of biological and psychological evolutionary evidence to the contrary.

Yes, yes, yes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

English has no direct translation for "chismosa", but we understand the concept.

I had to look it up. Yes!