If I may ask: What are your two mother-tongues; and what is the 3rd language you work in? Which language do you use for thinking? When you are by yourself, and have any kind of problem to solve, what language do you use?
My native languages are Spanish and Swiss German. I work in English and sometimes French. I think as a baseline in Spanish, with a dash of Swiss german and english. My groceries list is a mix haha
Yes, I suspect the language impacts: Spanish, German, English, & French are Indo-European languages - which means they developed out of a common Mother tongue. I have a small to tiny knowledge of several Indo-European languages and see the structural relationship between them. Also, the vocabulary words often seem related to each other.
But I have heard something to the effect that Chinese doesn't have the concept "to be" - which astonished me because that concept is so basic (to my mind) that not having that concept is like making bread with no flour. An Iranian told me something to the effect that Persian doesn't normally distinguish between males & females; whereas in my Christian mind, the basic Fact about a human is "Male" or "Female". Russian is so fixated on gender that the past tenses of verbs have different endings to show whether a male or female did the act. And many Russian nouns describing trades & professions have suffixes which show the gender of a person. We used to do that in English (e.g., steward, stewardess); but with our "gender equality" fixation) we dropped those endings.
Many decades ago, I read a story about Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered Troy, and it said that he was so well-versed in the Indo-European languages that he could learn a new one in just a few months!
I think language does shape our thinking: Consider the Greek verb, "agapeo" or its noun form "agape". We know from John's letters that this refers to treating someone according to the Law. So if I "agapeo" you, I won't kill you, steal your stuff, or bear false witness against you.
But in English, we don't have a word for that concept. So it's mistranslated to mean "charity" or "liking" or "loving".
So Jesus' command to agapeo our enemies actually means we must treat them according to the Law. It doesn't mean we are required to "like" them or have a tender affection for them. But English speaking Christians believe we are commanded to like or love our enemies!
This has been a disaster. Because English doesn't have a word for that concept and English translators either didn't understand what it meant or mistakenly believed they had to come up with a one word definition instead of using a phrase to show its true meaning.
That's the literally first think I thought of after I read this! Wondering if there are similar words of heavy linguistic weight that get mistranslated that many people may not know about?
I'm sure there are other major mistranslations. I'd have never known of this one had I not looked up (using a Concordance) every instance where the Greek New Testament uses the word agapeo or agape.
I suspect the mistranslations in the Old Testament are more numerous. I don't know a word of ancient Hebrew, but one can find out a lot using a concordance: See this for a shocking mistranslation of a well-known passage in Isaiah: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/sarah-palin-isaiah-312/
I'm looking forward to the day when all lies will be exposed and the Truth revealed!
I think you're mistaken. How about "respect"? I won't treat you bady, I will treat you justly.
Furthermore, I do believe your view of 'agape' is unduly restrictive, at least according to my small understanding. I think it's the other way around: 'agape' is more than a legal obligation, afaik.
And if you think the Good Lord was preaching mere adherence to strictures, you need to read the New Testament, I would hazard.
John didn’t define agape as “respect”. And when YOU use the terms “respect”, “badly” & “justly”, what definitions of those terms do you use? Do you use God’s standards of what constitutes “respect”, badly” and “justly”; or do you fall back on your own thoughts about what those terms signify?
To point out that if one agapeos God, one will obey him is NOT to assert that one is saved by obedience to the Law.
It is true that refraining from stealing your stuff, etc. is not sufficient. We are also told to be “nice” (1 Corinthians 13). So if you are holding a person as a prisoner, you are to treat him according to the Law - which means, you are Not to rape him, torture him, harvest his body parts, etc., etc. - and you are required by God to be “nice”: the prisoner gets food, water, sanitation, etc. . This does not mean, however, that a just sentence after a fair trial can not be imposed. But his personal effects must be delivered to his next of kin; not put into the Jailer’s pockets.
Even think of “ homeless” instead of “ bum,” vagrant, hobo, and tramp. Same characters but the current “ homeless” is a sympathetic word. Also why the problem is not a house or lack of a house but permission giving to be a bum( a victim!”
OTOH, you get the euphemism treadmill. You have to keep updating the term because when people regard something negatively, any term applied acquires negative connotations.
This is awesome! Once you learn the thee/you distinction, it illuminates so much of classic literature and scripture in a new way.
I’m learning Hindi right now, and it’s the first language I’ve encountered that uses three variants of you: “aap” (formal), “tum” (informal), and “tu” (best described as intimate, reserved mostly for lovers, prayers, and a person’s own children). It’s a small shift that adds so much texture to everyday language.
And Sanskrit is an entirely different world, as it has varying articles for single, couple and many. Vowels at the and of words, compound and at times a page is a single word which has to be parsed, leading to a plethora of interpretations.
I honestly feel/think so differently when I speak Persian/Dari and to me there's an intimate, poetic attachment in each word that I think has influenced me in so many ways. Also there are hundreds of words and concepts in those two languages that I can't quite translate to English!
I was amazed to learn from an Iranian woman on X that the form of Persian used by Omar Khayyam (1048-1131) in the Rubaiyat can be read by Iranians of today. That's astonishing to my English-speaking mind.
Is the Rubaiyat considered to be one of the foundational works of Persian literature? It's the only Persian work of literature I've ever read. It became well known in the English speaking world with the translation by Edward Fitzgerald.
What are some other classics of Persian literature which have been translated into English?
I believe Irish & at least some Native American languages assign gender to animals, trees, plants, etc. which is a pretty big fundamental shift in perception. It’s woven into their cultural belief system with far more respect for the natural world, versus English where everything is an “it.”
Many. if not all. of the Indo-European languages assign gender to nouns: Latin, Greek, Russian, German, etc., etc., too many to list. English is unique among the Indo-European languages in that we don't assign gender to nouns.
Russian even assigns gender to the past tense of verbs so that one tell from looking at the form of the verb, whether the person who did a thing is male or female!
Live with a German from Munich where Bavarians have words that can stump the most scholarly Berliner. That said, German is fair in one respect in that you pronounce every letter. Not like French where they are sometimes merely suggestions.
Interesting. I actually wrote my PhD on language and power, one thing that stood out to me is how linguistic structures don’t just reflect thought, but actively constrain what can be expressed or even imagined.
Finally an article that debunks the "1 language 1 perspective" theory.
I completely agree with what you said about the fact that each language presents small fleeting glimpses of meaning that we can learn to capture if we learn a new language.
This is more motivating for a language learner, because the attention shifts to the language learning process and instead of the result itself of knowing a language.
Thank you for such an interesting read! I grew up speaking English, Chinese (Mandarin), German and French and I could not agree more with the idea that language shapes personality. Often, I think it is difficult to distinguish between the language itself and the culture you are surrounded by while you communicate.
To say that language shapes our thinking is, in a certain sense, correct—but it risks being misunderstood if taken too broadly. Language does not merely influence thought from the outside; rather, it provides the very framework within which thinking takes place.
We do not first have thoughts and then put them into words. In many cases, the thought is already embedded in the language we use. To understand a concept is to understand how it is used within a particular form of life.
Differences between languages, therefore, are not simply differences in vocabulary, but differences in how meaning is organized. What can be clearly said in one language may require effort, approximation, or even remain inexpressible in another. Yet this does not imprison us—it merely shows that our understanding is always situated.
Philosophical confusion often arises when language is taken beyond the context in which it has meaning. To ask how language shapes thought may itself be misleading if we imagine language and thought as two separate things. They are, in many ways, inseparable.
Thus, the limits of language are not a barrier imposed upon us, but the horizon within which our world becomes intelligible.
This is how Ludwig Wittgenstein might have commented—Wittgenstein (1889–1951) was one of the most influential philosophers of language. His work explored how meaning arises through use and how deeply thinking is intertwined with linguistic structures. For this reason, he is especially suited to reflect on such a topic, refining the idea that language does not merely influence thought, but partly constitutes it.
As Heidegger once said, «language is the home of Being». And, also, «man is the language shepard». That means we are the language we live (and talk with) in.
I grew up bilingual and I work in a third language. I strongly believe I have slightly different personalities in each language lol
If I may ask: What are your two mother-tongues; and what is the 3rd language you work in? Which language do you use for thinking? When you are by yourself, and have any kind of problem to solve, what language do you use?
Hi Joanna, would the language impact somehow?
My native languages are Spanish and Swiss German. I work in English and sometimes French. I think as a baseline in Spanish, with a dash of Swiss german and english. My groceries list is a mix haha
Yes, I suspect the language impacts: Spanish, German, English, & French are Indo-European languages - which means they developed out of a common Mother tongue. I have a small to tiny knowledge of several Indo-European languages and see the structural relationship between them. Also, the vocabulary words often seem related to each other.
But I have heard something to the effect that Chinese doesn't have the concept "to be" - which astonished me because that concept is so basic (to my mind) that not having that concept is like making bread with no flour. An Iranian told me something to the effect that Persian doesn't normally distinguish between males & females; whereas in my Christian mind, the basic Fact about a human is "Male" or "Female". Russian is so fixated on gender that the past tenses of verbs have different endings to show whether a male or female did the act. And many Russian nouns describing trades & professions have suffixes which show the gender of a person. We used to do that in English (e.g., steward, stewardess); but with our "gender equality" fixation) we dropped those endings.
Many decades ago, I read a story about Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered Troy, and it said that he was so well-versed in the Indo-European languages that he could learn a new one in just a few months!
I think language does shape our thinking: Consider the Greek verb, "agapeo" or its noun form "agape". We know from John's letters that this refers to treating someone according to the Law. So if I "agapeo" you, I won't kill you, steal your stuff, or bear false witness against you.
But in English, we don't have a word for that concept. So it's mistranslated to mean "charity" or "liking" or "loving".
So Jesus' command to agapeo our enemies actually means we must treat them according to the Law. It doesn't mean we are required to "like" them or have a tender affection for them. But English speaking Christians believe we are commanded to like or love our enemies!
This has been a disaster. Because English doesn't have a word for that concept and English translators either didn't understand what it meant or mistakenly believed they had to come up with a one word definition instead of using a phrase to show its true meaning.
Highly enlightening and makes a lot of sense. Thank you - you've clarified this beautifully.
That's the literally first think I thought of after I read this! Wondering if there are similar words of heavy linguistic weight that get mistranslated that many people may not know about?
I'm sure there are other major mistranslations. I'd have never known of this one had I not looked up (using a Concordance) every instance where the Greek New Testament uses the word agapeo or agape.
I suspect the mistranslations in the Old Testament are more numerous. I don't know a word of ancient Hebrew, but one can find out a lot using a concordance: See this for a shocking mistranslation of a well-known passage in Isaiah: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/sarah-palin-isaiah-312/
I'm looking forward to the day when all lies will be exposed and the Truth revealed!
I think you're mistaken. How about "respect"? I won't treat you bady, I will treat you justly.
Furthermore, I do believe your view of 'agape' is unduly restrictive, at least according to my small understanding. I think it's the other way around: 'agape' is more than a legal obligation, afaik.
And if you think the Good Lord was preaching mere adherence to strictures, you need to read the New Testament, I would hazard.
John didn’t define agape as “respect”. And when YOU use the terms “respect”, “badly” & “justly”, what definitions of those terms do you use? Do you use God’s standards of what constitutes “respect”, badly” and “justly”; or do you fall back on your own thoughts about what those terms signify?
To point out that if one agapeos God, one will obey him is NOT to assert that one is saved by obedience to the Law.
It is true that refraining from stealing your stuff, etc. is not sufficient. We are also told to be “nice” (1 Corinthians 13). So if you are holding a person as a prisoner, you are to treat him according to the Law - which means, you are Not to rape him, torture him, harvest his body parts, etc., etc. - and you are required by God to be “nice”: the prisoner gets food, water, sanitation, etc. . This does not mean, however, that a just sentence after a fair trial can not be imposed. But his personal effects must be delivered to his next of kin; not put into the Jailer’s pockets.
Even think of “ homeless” instead of “ bum,” vagrant, hobo, and tramp. Same characters but the current “ homeless” is a sympathetic word. Also why the problem is not a house or lack of a house but permission giving to be a bum( a victim!”
You left off “unhoused” - indicating it’s society or someone else who took their house.
OTOH, you get the euphemism treadmill. You have to keep updating the term because when people regard something negatively, any term applied acquires negative connotations.
Oh yes - every word carries a truckload of "baggage".
This is awesome! Once you learn the thee/you distinction, it illuminates so much of classic literature and scripture in a new way.
I’m learning Hindi right now, and it’s the first language I’ve encountered that uses three variants of you: “aap” (formal), “tum” (informal), and “tu” (best described as intimate, reserved mostly for lovers, prayers, and a person’s own children). It’s a small shift that adds so much texture to everyday language.
And Sanskrit is an entirely different world, as it has varying articles for single, couple and many. Vowels at the and of words, compound and at times a page is a single word which has to be parsed, leading to a plethora of interpretations.
Oh that sounds incredible. I’m sure it would be complicated but so rewarding to learn the language and puzzle it out.
I honestly feel/think so differently when I speak Persian/Dari and to me there's an intimate, poetic attachment in each word that I think has influenced me in so many ways. Also there are hundreds of words and concepts in those two languages that I can't quite translate to English!
Arzo, do you live in Iran?
I was amazed to learn from an Iranian woman on X that the form of Persian used by Omar Khayyam (1048-1131) in the Rubaiyat can be read by Iranians of today. That's astonishing to my English-speaking mind.
Is the Rubaiyat considered to be one of the foundational works of Persian literature? It's the only Persian work of literature I've ever read. It became well known in the English speaking world with the translation by Edward Fitzgerald.
What are some other classics of Persian literature which have been translated into English?
I was born in Afghanistan but live in the states!
I’ve personally only read it briefly, but Rubaiyat is absolutely an essential work and holds deep cultural value in our region.
I would recommend you look into Rumi and Saadi Shirazi who are some of the best Persian poets!
Thank you!
Oh you have no idea how much it shapes my thinking, language IS my thinking. Explained in more detail across my various Substack publications.
I believe Irish & at least some Native American languages assign gender to animals, trees, plants, etc. which is a pretty big fundamental shift in perception. It’s woven into their cultural belief system with far more respect for the natural world, versus English where everything is an “it.”
Many. if not all. of the Indo-European languages assign gender to nouns: Latin, Greek, Russian, German, etc., etc., too many to list. English is unique among the Indo-European languages in that we don't assign gender to nouns.
Russian even assigns gender to the past tense of verbs so that one tell from looking at the form of the verb, whether the person who did a thing is male or female!
And in German a turnip is feminine but a girl is neuter.
My Collins German Concise seconds you on that, swiftly following up with Knallkopf!
Oh so true! I remember how difficult it was to memorize the gender of nouns while learning French. English really is an interesting outlier.
And of course French doesn't preserve the neuter gender, which technically most English nouns are.
As it is in Italian, where everything has a gender. Even "air": ARIA - feminine :-)
Thinking of ‘thou’ being more intimate reminds me of this.
À Yorkshire youth addresses an old man as ‘thou’. He retorts, ‘Don’t thee tha’ me. Thee tha’ them as thous thee!’
Live with a German from Munich where Bavarians have words that can stump the most scholarly Berliner. That said, German is fair in one respect in that you pronounce every letter. Not like French where they are sometimes merely suggestions.
Interesting. I actually wrote my PhD on language and power, one thing that stood out to me is how linguistic structures don’t just reflect thought, but actively constrain what can be expressed or even imagined.
Didn’t realise I need to add “sorrow fat” to my lexicon
I always thought the singular of spaghetti was spaghetto. 😆
Finally an article that debunks the "1 language 1 perspective" theory.
I completely agree with what you said about the fact that each language presents small fleeting glimpses of meaning that we can learn to capture if we learn a new language.
This is more motivating for a language learner, because the attention shifts to the language learning process and instead of the result itself of knowing a language.
Thank you for such an interesting read! I grew up speaking English, Chinese (Mandarin), German and French and I could not agree more with the idea that language shapes personality. Often, I think it is difficult to distinguish between the language itself and the culture you are surrounded by while you communicate.
To say that language shapes our thinking is, in a certain sense, correct—but it risks being misunderstood if taken too broadly. Language does not merely influence thought from the outside; rather, it provides the very framework within which thinking takes place.
We do not first have thoughts and then put them into words. In many cases, the thought is already embedded in the language we use. To understand a concept is to understand how it is used within a particular form of life.
Differences between languages, therefore, are not simply differences in vocabulary, but differences in how meaning is organized. What can be clearly said in one language may require effort, approximation, or even remain inexpressible in another. Yet this does not imprison us—it merely shows that our understanding is always situated.
Philosophical confusion often arises when language is taken beyond the context in which it has meaning. To ask how language shapes thought may itself be misleading if we imagine language and thought as two separate things. They are, in many ways, inseparable.
Thus, the limits of language are not a barrier imposed upon us, but the horizon within which our world becomes intelligible.
This is how Ludwig Wittgenstein might have commented—Wittgenstein (1889–1951) was one of the most influential philosophers of language. His work explored how meaning arises through use and how deeply thinking is intertwined with linguistic structures. For this reason, he is especially suited to reflect on such a topic, refining the idea that language does not merely influence thought, but partly constitutes it.
As Heidegger once said, «language is the home of Being». And, also, «man is the language shepard». That means we are the language we live (and talk with) in.