/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