/bs/ - backstory

>>299433
Ugly

>>299441
bro yu so picky

>>299444
Thats true, not gonna lie. Though, Ill say ugly either way

>>299450
Beautiful

Big Disagree, actually massive. Perhaps the biggest disagreement ever.

There is no such thing as "accident" when it comes to language. language is created by minds of the people. Its not an accident at all, its bigger than nation, god, or anything like that.

Its impossible to have finno-ugric thoughts and mindset without finno-ugric language. The thought process itself is defined by the language and vice versa.

in the words of emil cioran:
"It is no nation that we inhabit, but a language. Make no mistake; our native toungue is our true fatherland."

and in the words of eino leino:
"One mind, one language,
therein lies the safeguard of Finland."

There is no homeland, no culture without language.

if you go to america, and start speaking american, your native language skill starts to decrease, soon you forget a word, then how to form a sentence, and the americanization of the mind is done. You cope by thinking it is a choice, and you did it for survival and for your own sake, but no, there is no survival because you already died. You died, and a new person was born. The international american, anti-people, anti-folk, The devourer of cultures.

i understand now, i must destroy the c standards committee

Rated: 3.5/5

>>299496
Well, but you cant really argue against the fact that there are far too many examples that show that language is nothing sacred. In Africa, some places speak French. Yet they live in undeniably African culture. English is spread through all world, and yet, Indians have undeniably Indian culture. Not to mention that in many countries language differs between regions, and culture differs between regions, and when we say Indian culture we are being disingenuous because South India is really different from North India

Why then we can say that there is definitely an Indian culture? Firstly, because there is a place called India, where historical processes cannot be denied. But the actual reason why is the political entity called India. If Kerala to be politically independent, and would have a country status, would it then overnight convert from being called Indian culture to Kerala culture? Yes, thats exactly how it would be

So, no. I respect your patriotic feeling, but none of dat wat you say is true. If you suddenly spoke only English, you would still possess Finnish culture. You cannot be dispossessed of something that youve carried with you all life since birth

But continuing carring culture is a choice, that you realize well. And language obsession is just one way of scaring people who otherwise could make other choices into making the patriotic choice. Even if language influences thought, (really small influence), it is inconceivable that you would unable to express your Finno-Ugric thought in different language. After all, meaning is all the same across all languages, there is nothing mystical in any of the language

So, indeed, you actually prove that common language is needed for the army first. Most countries have regional differences so great that they could be called countries within countries. Finland is no exception, up north Sami people, if given a country status, would be overnight called dat with own Sami culture which everyone recognizes

Thus, language is indeed a historical accident. You cannot deny otherwise, so, you have to reduce it to just being an accident and atrack it dat way. But its true, language is just an historical fact that just happen to be, you or I could be speaking absolutely random languages and have still the same culture. Only way you can continue arguing for language as the heart of the culture is by using a trick, saying that most people are bilingual now, but try doing dat

>>299497
How did you know wat this is about??? You are always right…

>>299587
Eh, not true. there isnt such thing as african culture. Africans that started speaking french didnt turn french, sure, but they did change and the culture of their original language died with it.

Well, thats a different issue. You say this and that is how we call a culture, but true culture is not only bound by politics of nation. But i admit that u when separate one from the other it starts slowly shape into another. For instance north korea and south korea are extremely different by politics, and are extremely divided. Well, that not just it, their language is changing to different and not only because of politics. You know in finland, there is government entity that decides language and while sounding bad, it isnt so bad. Sometimes they just say how certain thing should be said, its more of a recommendation. In hundreds and hundreds of years ago they added the letter D to finnish language, and it is in very many words of written finnish, yet majority of finns still dont say it. They did study of this to prove it, it is not used, and there is dozen different ways to skip it.

Again, i disagree. During the swedish and russian rule of finland they tried to destroy finnish culture, and their primary goal was always to destroy the language first. They didnt succeed, but do you think they were wrong when they acknowledged that language is most important to culture? no they werent, they were exactly on the point. Of course there is other things, like during the swedish rule they were planning to destroy the sauna-culture. Well again they didnt execute properly, but they succeeded destroying the culture of forest finns (who live within sweden), by banning their language and farming methods and so on.

The difference between us is that you think that the influence of language to thought is small, i disagree, i think its huge.. there are words that dont have equivalent in english, the structure is different, the association between words is different, the sound is different, and i could go on and on. Even when they translate english to finnish they use the words that can be similar to english one, but isnt exactly the same, because the languages dont have corresponding words. I can give really basic example, in english you can say "Im sorry to hear that", in finnish there is literally no way to say that. Well you could technically, but it wouldnt make sense. i could give a thousand word list of words thats commonly translated from finnish that are not equivalent to each other.

the problem with sami is that there are 9 sami languages. in finland only there is 3. the sami pop is very small. They couldnt make state because they dont even agree with each other. And you couldnt make state based on just reindeer herding anyway. But i respect sami, because they are finno-ugric. And they also have cool hat called hat of four winds.

im not gonna make the bilingual argument. But knowing another language helps to understand what language is. In fact this defends my argument, since a lot of times when writing english i think how to express something. what i mean by that is that when i have a finnish thought, but i must express it in english, i have to do lot more than just to translate the words, i have to figure out the common english way to express the thing, roughly the same thing, and even then its not really the same. So no, im not bullshitting you or trying to make patriotic argument for patriotism sake. The differences are real.

>>299742
Why then everyone speaks of African culture? Obviously there is such a thing as African culture because there is such a place as Africa. And no, you are really wrong about "original culture", first of all how can you judge other people's culture to be original if they still live and have their culture

North Korea and South Korea are one culture. And one people. And one place. Out of all examples, this one is about how culture is the same for divided people. North Korea exist as a polity, and hence we can say that there is such a thing as North Korean culture. If it didnt, there would be just Korean culture

Destroying culture and destroying language are two separate things. Firstly, when you are being ruled by someone, it implies already unequal relationship. Wat I want to say, is dat if you are a Finn under Russian empire, all you can do is to resist. It is not then surprising that the empire will try to erase the language, because it is allowing resistance to be built that the imperial administration cannot do much about. You are for some reason even in this obvious situation fail to see where power is. But on top of that Russian empire did a policy of russification, trying to erase Finnish culture. This stems from streamlining and centralization that empires desire, if people are all the same(culturally) across all the empire, they mostly think the same and much more likely to support the empire and its ambitions

Thats all language. All language is like dat. That has no bearing on meaning, which is universal. Its true, language influences thought just by a little bit. But not so much as people would think entirely different, or be seen entirely alien. So, dunno. If you aesthetically prefer Finnish, thats cool. But Finnish is not special in any way, just like Chinese is not special, or Ethiopian, or Arabic, or Russian. They all exist to transmit meaning, they all exist to aid in communication. And that all languages are different is nothing special either, languages come to be like they are now by history. Just because the phrase is unique, or word is not translatable, watever, doesnt mean that the meaning cannot be matched in other language. I argue for the maximal position, that the meaning that can be expressed in one language can be equally expressed in other language. This includes nuances too. (But it is not done because it is impractical. You yourself admit that technically you are incorrect. However, you still able to understand the meaning. So, your example is self defeating)

That is not a problem. Not having a language standard body is thousands of times better than having it. Finland has language standard, and yet in daily life Finns speak different language. Why then the standard? Legibility of the population for the government, thats one reason. The standard is born out of government, not people. Government decides to enforce it. You cannot really speak the "literary language", you can only write in it, and it is clear wat purpose it is for. Many countries have the same, most restrictive example is France where language standard is own institution and French Academy has societal power for unexplainable reasons. But dont mistake me for a language hater. There is only one language that I hate, Russian, but reasons for dat are complicated. But I love language and culture. I love how people speak, not how government wants people to speak. I love culture that is performed by people, not how it is legislated or commanded. So, Finnish language as it is spoken is orangutan times more beautiful than Finnish literary language. So, I will never in a million of billion years will agree that government legislating how to say thing right is acceptable, because that means that other, spontaneous ways will be destroyed and some culture will be lost. This is unacceptable. If you are patriotic, I respect you handsomely, but I will not admit that people simply have no choice of how to speak, they do have, and they must speak the way they feel like it

It is not surprising. This is because you are already take Finnish thought to be true, which it isnt, and from it you defend your position. It is circular. As for the argument itself, I dunno. Does it really support your argument? Its too vague to say. I cannot say if it is supporting your argument. The thing about bilingual was about other thing. For example, in India most people speak at least two languages English/Hindi and native, some speak Hindi and English. So, this was the bilingual argument, that you can still say that language is safeguarded by language even though they have to speak a common language and that this at least partly shows intense gravity between language and culture. I wouldve then had gorilla length posts explaining how language can exist entirely separately from culture and culture entirely separate from language

>>299742
maybe i misunderstand what you mean but isn't "ikävä kuulla" pretty much the same thing

Rated: 2/5

>>299793
It isnt complex at all. You take a state, define it as original, and when it get replaced by influence so much so that its more foreign than original state then its no longer original. very simple and easy to understand concept.

What do you mean here by "exist as polity", so does south korea, so dunno how that helps. Cultures dont exist as some magical thing on the air, they are defined by nature of things.

I fail to see argument here, erasing language is same as erasing culture. You can say language and culture arent exactly the same, fine, but the first step to destroy culture is to destroy language. Its not just about the resistance. You can resist within one language group.

How does that make it not special? Of course its special, and im not saying that just one language is special, but that every language is special. Some languages vary less from each other, some more. The more your language vary from another, the more different the framework of thinking is. Its just common sense. If you however, artificially modify language enough you can maybe convey a message that only exists in another language. I mean you could do this case by case, but it would be tremendous amount of work. And it would require infinite amount of explaining. So then it would be natural language anymore or natural way to communicate with given language. I think its you who created self defeating argument right there.

The purpose of government institute is to make clear what is the correct way to say thing, so different bodies and communicate more clearly. It has practical element to it. Anyway, it is not really enforcing people to speak certain way. (I think thats almost impossible anyway) Sometimes they just say that this or that is now officially established word, because it used by lot of people. So they dont just invent things out of blue either. Sometimes the line between people and governing body isnt so dramatic, as the governing bodies are made out of the same people (duh). That said i will agree with you that spoken language is better than literary language (at least in case of finnish)

bilingual or not, there is always one language that is truly your mother tongue. If not, well, perhaps then you are culturally a mix.

>>299820
You indeed did misunderstand. "Im sorry to hear that" can, and often is translated to "Ikävä kuulla", but ikävä has nothing to do with being sorry. Then you might think, what about "Olen pahoillani", again, nothing to do with being sorry.

The true equivalent to sorry is anteeksi. But you literally cannot say "Anteeksi kuullessani tuon". The closest you can get while sounding somewhat natural, would be "Olen pahoillani kuullessani tuon", but thats not something anyone would say. And it wouldnt be the same either, because "pahoillani" is not equivalent to sorry. If you use english to finnish dictionary you cant understand it. But if you are finnish speaker yu will understand that the word "pahoillaan", "paha" is closest to bad, and thus in pure sense means feeling bad, not feeling sorry.

So even in the most simplest sentence like that, you can fully realize that the whole mindset and the framework of the two languages are different. (this example i gave isnt really that good as i just used first sentence that came to mind)

>>300111
maailman = stuff above heada stuff below heada (makes better/more perfect sense for physics based cultures which just use earth or under heaven)

>>300113
what about maailmankaikkeus (earth-air's-everything), its universe in finnish :D

>>300111
You cannot define culture as original, especially if people who come from dat culture still live(ie it is not your choice)

Dat doesnt mean any thing, division between north and south Korea is historical and ideological but they are one people and one culture. It is not some mystical nature of things, it can be explained(South Korea exist as a polity, so, it has claim for culture of dat name. So, we can say South Korean culture, and we can say North Korean culture because of dat. Wat I want to say that those two are just two aspects of the same culture)

Sure, if you believe dat adamantly I wont say any thing further. But you are wrong

No. You are wrong, language is not special at all. Everyone can learn different languages easy, they are not exclusive, they dont allow you to express some special thoughts. There is nothing artificial about language change, any way, I cannot argue against wat you write like this because it is esoteric and mystical knowledge now that Im arguing about. This hardly can be counter argued

Practical element, sure, but it is still enforcing how people speak to government, after all, people have to encounter bureaucracy. And language standards have effects on wat language is appropriate for mass communication. So, in fact, standards exist to create correct ways of speaking. Any way, there is big difference between a bureaucrat and a human

No one disputes dat. I dispute how you hold language as holy and mystical thing that just creates culture. I want to say dat language can only ever represent the culture, which is reasonable, and you go into esoteric and somwhow connect people language culture into one. How about land, which has one billion times more importance to culture than language? We dont even arrive at this stage of discussion because Im unable to counterargue your esoteric beliefs

>>300161
I mean, you can though. Just choose a point and thats the origin, so too much different from that is not original. That just how we use it. You cant literally see origin point of anything so we are free to define, or else the culture would just mean we being plankton in the water or something.

Here you say, "has claim for culture", so let me ask you, who defines the culture? Is it a person? or greater audience of people? Lets say its a person or people that inhabit that culture. How then, can you argue against me saying that language defines culture? If a group says that, this is our culture and in our culture we speak this language, then are you to defy their right?

How can you say im wrong and then not say a word? not really fair.

So how does the ability to learn make them less special? Special just means unusual, so depending on perspective it is special. Eating apple isnt special, because everyone eats apple. But if you make grandmas special apple jam, then its special by definition.

Yea, well i can get behind hating bureaucrats, but they dont pop into existence from thin air. Every bureaucrat is still human. Dehumanizing doesnt help solve issue at hand.

If something is holy or mystical at all in this world then its language. But i didnt use those words you did. Now you want to argue that land is more important.. lets see. when europeans went to america did the land turn them into indians? no it did not, it was other way around. the land become very european, english especially. Eventually developing own cultural charasteristic, but its still closer to west europe than anything that was on that land originally.

Think about subcultures. What do they all have in common? They all start to developing their own words and meanings associated between them, before anything else. So i wish you gave this idea a chance instead of being against it out of principle.

>>300319
There is really no such thing as original culture. We can temporalize culture to some points in time but dats it. Lets not decide for people wat is their "original" culture and wat is not

No one defines culture, culture is described for someone who is only observing, or performed or lived by the one who is inside of it. No, so long they dont proclaim language as integral or equal to culture then I can say dat language is only a descriptor of culture. That I will admit, but in general I wont

I thought I said enough but it doesnt seem dat any of I said is enough for you to at least consider wat I say. So, you are adamant, and nothing can be done

How can be language special by this definition, if here language being special depends on person? Its absurd, how can your feeling of language be special can be shared across other people

My problem is not with bureaucrats per say but the structure which allows them power

Wat? This is insane line of argument. How the HECK you went from arguing about language to arguing about europeans turning into indians? None of dat is obvious, neither is it obvious how it furthers your argument. I wont consider this, because it is a false premise to assume europeans could ever turn into indians

Im obviously not against it out of principle. Subcultures do not create language, they use creatively the language. They might charge words with new meaning, or indeed create new words. They are called subcultures because they lie under some culture, but they dont have own language per say, wat they have is an idiolect or in some cases a private dialect. This just shows that one language can share many cultures and many cultures might share one language

Reason why we cant agree is because our assumptions are very different. You connect language to human in a not obvious thing for me which I cant really understand why. So, I think dat your argument is incomplete, or it cannot be understood as it is. But you argue as every thing is there for me to understand. I really dont see it, so, thats why said dat its esoteric knowledge. Because it is literally, I dont have access to it