Languages ( was : Yiddish translation of Gita )

[Lars Martin Fosse]

>>Languages, by the way, do not have values. They transmit values. A
>>language is just a neutral agent.
>
>I disagree with this statement. Not seldom the words of a language
>which served as tool for transmitting concepts belonging to the
>Weltanschauung of a culture may become the very substance,
>the very abstract object conceived.So the words and consequently
>the language incorporate values.Not even metalanguages as that of, say,
>Pânini in his Ashtâdhyayî, are that neutral.

I would still claim that any language, in terms of grammar and morphology,
is capable of transmitting any value system.

The problem is, of course, the vocabulary and concepts connected with the
culture, as you say. However, vocabularies are not static. They develop,
partly through loans, partly through the development of new meanings to
words. Thus, a language that at a given moment in time lacks the words or
concepts necessary to express a certain set of values, can be made to do so
over time, just as it can loose the ability to express values it could
express before. My point is: You have to see language as a flexible system.
To use Yiddish as an example: Used for a 1000 years by Jews, and only by
Jews, it would of course have all the concepts necessary to express Jewish
values. However, if you convinced the British upper class to use Yiddish
instead of the Queen's English, it could equally well be manipulated to
express English upper class values. The same argument applies to any other
language.

Consequently, I will still maintain that a language is a neutral agent. 

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse


Dr.art. Lars Martin Fosse
Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
0674 Oslo

Tel: +47 22 32 12 19
Fax: +47 22 32 12 19
Email: lmfosse at online.no
Mobile phone: 90 91 91 45