Lejos de ser un lingüista, siempre me sentí atraído por las culturas en general y los lenguajes en particular. Y cuanto más distantes del español, mejor. Así, durante años estuve intentando bucear, con escaso o nulo éxito, en el ruso, el uzbeko y un poco más acá en el tiempo, en el turco.
Algunas de las curiosidades que encontré, entre tantas, es que los uzbekos siempre especifican el tipo de parentesco que mantienen con sus familiares, añadiendo el “por parte de madre” o “por parte de padre” cuando se refieren a tíos, primos, cuñados, etc. En realidad, no es una “añadidura”, but totally different words are used: In the same way we differ by sex (uncle, cousin / a), they use different words, differentiating sex differ heritage branch / matrilineal kinship. Thus, "Xola" means aunt by the mother, while "amma" will aunt by the father, "tog'o" will uncle on her mother and "amaki" uncle by the father. There is not influenced by any word that brings together dry uncles and aunts, and I suspect that this may be because the ancestral context in which this language was developed, not "worth" the same to be cousin part of mother by the father in the daily treatment. But this is only a hypothesis.
Another of the curiosities I observed, is that although the written language using the "?" End to ask a question, in speech not need it, because instead of changing the intonation at the end of the sentence as we do, they even sing the whole phrase (like a statement), and add the suffix "I" at the end to mean "I'm asking." But all without changing the pitch at the end of the sentence.
An exception to the final location of the "question mark" How is the elemental are you?, they coalesce into a single word "Yajsimisiz" sung as a statement: "Yaj" = I; "yes" = is, "my" = question mark, "siz" = you.
remember that the original languages \u200b\u200bUral-Altaic (including Turkish and Turkmen) are the most binders such as German, that is, put together a "word" based on a root to which they are "decorating" with different suffixes , infix and prefix. "Sharq Taronalari" is a festival that takes place every odd year in Samarkand I was invited (as a spectator, obviously), and means "Rhythms of the East "or" Rhythms of the East. " Here, the "armed" is: "Sharq" = East (or East), "Taron" = Rhythm and "lari" (as in Turkish), "the" or "of." In fact, the suffix "lari" applies to the plural (Rhythm), while using "lar" to the singular (rhythm). According to
very interesting article on the subject (in English), there are many curiosities of the kind in the strangest languages \u200b\u200bspoken on the planet. Or not so remote: German, for example, is the gender of inanimate objects invested almost on the English, while English uses the neutral "it" for inanimate objects, and the Russian has no article in English determines (and / or strengthened as a redundant mode) gender and number of the noun. The Russian also assigned gender to inanimate objects, but without the need for gender and number coincide with the (missing) section. It is an extremely complex language, but at least not for this reason.
But let's get to the really curious: In much of the language "less rare", the location of an object is determined in relation to oneself, in a self-centered. So, something is left, right, front or back of a subject. However, this is not necessarily how they see other cultures. Thus, although the theory and Benjamin Lee Whorf ethnolinguistic been contradicted repeatedly by those who know, what can we say about those who speak Guugu Yimithirr ? The Guugu Yimithirr is a language spoken by Aborigines in northern Queensland, Australia, which are guided by the left, right, forward or backward, but only through the cardinal points.
Apparently, so has built over the spatial location of these coordinates, which are not lost nor awake or asleep, whether at home, in your neighborhood, diving in the reefs or in any city in the world, with sunshine, overcast, with light on or off, or under any circumstances, says Guy Deutscher, the author of the article cited above. They are a living GPS.
And inevitably, this mode of interacting with the surrounding world, should have a correlation with perception. So, if I'm in a hotel and a Yimithirr Guugu speaker is in an identical room opposite mine, if I go to his room I see the same room as mine, whereas if he visits the mine, "collected" something completely different: The window in his room faced north, the south will see me, the phone in his room was to the west, the mine will see to the east, and so on. Do you both see the same thing? Apparently not. The Guugu Yimithirr
are not alone in the world to see things this way because this way of interacting with the environment through language is not unique: In
The Chinese, for their part and as the article notes, does not distinguish specifically the time it takes an action, since the same verb form is applied to things past, present and future. Naturally, they specify how the chronology of events if anyone is wondering, but are not compelled by the language to do so. This obligation is required in our language, in the form of "I ran, run, will run" for which we choose not to express alternatives.
This mode of expression (hypothesize) and perceive the timing of events, should have to do with "patience china"? With the "ancient China"? Chinese supermarkets that are open at any time? Questions and more questions will surely be made Whorf at the time. Another special linguistic
as Deutscher, is the language spoken by the Matsés (or Mayoruna), an ethnic group which is distributed in the east of Peru, northern Bolivia and western Brazil. It is a language of the family Panonana , which also belong Toba, Mataco, Mocoví and Pilagá, among others.
Always according to the author, the language of Mats are forced to specify how one becomes aware of what he says. Thus, in English you can say "an animal passed by here", without being forced by the language that says it personally because he saw (experienced) he saw their tracks (inference), because animals usually go there (guess) or rumors. If a claim is assigned incorrectly, assume that is a lie.
Thus, no Mats will say "I have three children" unless all three are present and in sight at the time of making a statement. Otherwise, we say, past tense, "I had three children the last time I saw them (together)." I infer that if there are only two in the time to say, and a third is missing, a pastiche in Mats arm which means that, with appropriate inflections on experience, inference, conjecture or rumor underlying their claims.
probably ever will add something about the other languages \u200b\u200bthat I personally experienced a bit further, but for now, with two A4 is sufficient.
0 comments:
Post a Comment