

Ask HN: Why aren't there more missing words? - zaroth

I&#x27;ve always found it odd that there aren&#x27;t more times I am literally <i>lacking for words</i>. How is it possible that words are so expressive of thought? It is so much so that it must be thought is an expression of words. But that is not commonly taught? Or is it wrong?
======
b6
Wow, I'm surprised to hear you feel that way. I usually feel as if language,
even when used very thoughtfully, is able to provide only the barest sketch of
a lot of thoughts. I especially find it frustrating when talking about
feelings, or music, or drug experiences. I usually end up saying things in a
plain way, and color it with tone of voice.

I'm as sure as I can be that I don't think in words at all. Stuff happens down
in the engine room, and I get feelings, and then they get translated into
language.

Even when we're convinced that another person really means what they're
saying, the thought isn't really transmitted, only the intention to transmit
it. Parents tell their children so many things, their hearts breaking,
practically begging their children to really understand what they're saying,
and it rarely if ever _really_ gets through. We just keep making the same
mistakes because we're not able to transmit the feeling you get from bitter
experience. I think everything would be totally different if we could.

------
kseistrup
It's not that there are words missing, it's that you are lacking in
imagination: you only allow yourself to think in concepts that you have words
for.

E.g., in Indonesian there are two forms of “we”: “kita”, that includes the
person being spoken to, and “kami”, that excludes the person being spoken to.
In my native language, Danish, there is only one form (“vi”) but I have never
felt that I need more words to express “we”. Yet, when I see the Indonesian
feature it seems immediately useful and I start wondering why that possibility
of expression has never evolved in the Danish (or English) language.

You would probably want to read up on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis — e.g.,
[http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/sapir.cfm](http://linguistlist.org/ask-
ling/sapir.cfm)

~~~
dassreis
Thanks for the link. I had similar thoughts but was struggling to find a way
to express them. "The only thoughts we're capable of are bound by the
restraints of language", or something similar. It's a nice hypothesis. I think
the same words can sometimes mean different things to different people, even
where the context is fixed. I've often wondered whether we all see colors in
the same way.

------
zharkov
I would say it's because the same words are the basis for most of your
thoughts. It's not just that we think something and then find words to express
it. The two processes are more linked; the vocabulary we have influence our
ideas. Once you rely enough on language, it's a huge part of the way you
organize and apprehend the world. This is why it's so important to develop our
vocabulary. In a way, the more words you know, the more thoughts you can have.

~~~
zharkov
Update: I just read it seems to be called "Sapir–Whorf hypothesis", more on
there here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)

