Scan barcode
jetpackdracula's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racism and Colonisation
juletzky's review against another edition
3.0
This is a re-read that is even more interesting because I hadn't even begun studying linguistics when I read this the first time. I have to say that it is a very different book now! And, having now read many of the scholars Deutscher talks about, I have to agree with his general sentiment that it's not about what limits native languages put on their speakers, but more about the immense variety that language permits. However, there were a few things that rubbed me the wrong way.
First of all is the absolute lack of clear citations. I get that this is pop sci, but would a footnote hurt instead of a page-based system? And secondly, Deutscher's strategy with dealing with the racism and colonialist ideology that pervaded the field is just embarassing. Instead of clearly naming why racist attitudes made guys like Whorf so popular, or why languages are going extinct at an alarming rate (hint: it's not just globalism), Deutscher just alludes to it with a weird irony, exuding the attitude that serious scholars like him are above such nonsense. What is actually ironic is how he manages to reproduce the exact same stereotypes through the language he uses. The chapter about genus systems also misses no opportunity to make sexual comments about women. So, despite the very intriguing contents, a bit of a dissapointing second read.
First of all is the absolute lack of clear citations. I get that this is pop sci, but would a footnote hurt instead of a page-based system? And secondly, Deutscher's strategy with dealing with the racism and colonialist ideology that pervaded the field is just embarassing. Instead of clearly naming why racist attitudes made guys like Whorf so popular, or why languages are going extinct at an alarming rate (hint: it's not just globalism), Deutscher just alludes to it with a weird irony, exuding the attitude that serious scholars like him are above such nonsense. What is actually ironic is how he manages to reproduce the exact same stereotypes through the language he uses. The chapter about genus systems also misses no opportunity to make sexual comments about women. So, despite the very intriguing contents, a bit of a dissapointing second read.
kirahaynes's review against another edition
1.0
Dnf at page 40
I’ve never read a book that’s made me feel stupider
I’ve never read a book that’s made me feel stupider
thetbrstack's review against another edition
4.0
Good explanations of some complicated scientific theories and relationships.
dvargas's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
medium-paced
5.0
The topic itself and its content is too fascinating to not give it a 5-star-review!
Additionally, it is beautifully written, soundly composed and rhetorically brillant!
This book will change your view on the myriads of aspects of what makes every language so beautiful and fascinating.
Additionally, it is beautifully written, soundly composed and rhetorically brillant!
This book will change your view on the myriads of aspects of what makes every language so beautiful and fascinating.
bioniclib's review against another edition
3.0
Good stuff here. The low-ish ranking was more due to my trouble with colors than the book itself.
Here are the notes I took along the way:
French doesn’t have a single word that can mean what the English word, “mind” means. And English doesn’t have a single word that can mean what the French word “esprit” means. (14)
Hawaiian only has one word to cover the arm, hand, and finger. (16)
In chapter one. Homer’s “wine-dark sea” and other odd uses of color descriptors led Gladstone to assert Greeks were colorblind.
In chapter two, Geiger is asserting that how our eyes perceive color has evolved.
Magnus, the dude to took the ball from Geiger, asserted that the high-energy red was the first to be seen and the low-energy violet the last. He thinks we’ll eventually get to see ultraviolet. (49)
The problem with this theory is he had it backwards, red has the lowest energy, violet the highest. (76)
Proof that the language of color even in English is…problematic: Orange juice is yellow. (56)
A 1192 study by Revere Perkins found that the more complex the society (e.g. a tribe versus a democracy) the less complex the interna word structures. This means that the greater the morphological complexity of word, (ex: a single verb contains the tense, who is doing the action, where the action is being done) the less complex the society. (113)
The language of the Guugu Yimithirr tribe of Australia doesn’t have words for left and right or ever front and back, they use the cardinal directions instead. Proof that language can (but doesn’t always have to) change the way people see and function in the world, they will know which way North is no matter if they’re a stranger in a strange land of or in a windowless room. (Chapter 7)
Here are the notes I took along the way:
French doesn’t have a single word that can mean what the English word, “mind” means. And English doesn’t have a single word that can mean what the French word “esprit” means. (14)
Hawaiian only has one word to cover the arm, hand, and finger. (16)
In chapter one. Homer’s “wine-dark sea” and other odd uses of color descriptors led Gladstone to assert Greeks were colorblind.
In chapter two, Geiger is asserting that how our eyes perceive color has evolved.
Magnus, the dude to took the ball from Geiger, asserted that the high-energy red was the first to be seen and the low-energy violet the last. He thinks we’ll eventually get to see ultraviolet. (49)
The problem with this theory is he had it backwards, red has the lowest energy, violet the highest. (76)
Proof that the language of color even in English is…problematic: Orange juice is yellow. (56)
A 1192 study by Revere Perkins found that the more complex the society (e.g. a tribe versus a democracy) the less complex the interna word structures. This means that the greater the morphological complexity of word, (ex: a single verb contains the tense, who is doing the action, where the action is being done) the less complex the society. (113)
The language of the Guugu Yimithirr tribe of Australia doesn’t have words for left and right or ever front and back, they use the cardinal directions instead. Proof that language can (but doesn’t always have to) change the way people see and function in the world, they will know which way North is no matter if they’re a stranger in a strange land of or in a windowless room. (Chapter 7)