Information about local ecosystems is intricately woven into indigenous languages and cannot be replaced simply through translation.
For example, the Siberian Todzhu tribe has many different and complex names for reindeer, according to the animals' life stages. What is called a "chary" by the Todzu, would be translated in English as "a two-year-old male, un-castrated, rideable reindeer".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
multiple realities. this really questions what we (westerners) know to be true, as well as our methods of getting to those truths. if interdependence between indigenous peoples and nature creates an environment where observation can provide information that goes deeper than what is just on the surface, what are the interdependent relationships that we cultivate in our lives? whose existence is separate from ours, but integral to our survival as well?
i agree, jules, excepting that we (westerners) are actually very similar in our specialization of language to fit the importance of keys to our survival. we could certainly use a healthy dose of community and commune with nature. however, were the todzhu to no longer require harmony with the reindeer and their life-cycles, whether by natural means (earthquake, disease, famine) or man-made, they would not need the intricate description to be paired down to one word that they
all understand easily through experience. there is much to understand in the world, and much that is beyond science and technology, but the todzu word itself is full of mankind and it's forcefully manipulative hand. "un-castrated, rideable" is not exactly a description that is naturally necessary, but for the human presence in this ecosystem. interesting to contrast with the world we westerners inhabit, full of obvious manipulation of the natural order, and with our own specialized terms that are similarly beyond one-word translation to those that do not inhabit it.
that being said, your further questions are important ones. interconnectivity and oneness are inevitable and important, whether in a technological jungle, or the one that was here before it.
p.s. did you click on the link and read the article? the comments are hilarious, especially contrasted to these two.
i wasn't trying to be all romantic about some idyllic relationship between people and nature. i was more interested in the trout/salmon thing and the butterflies. and i wasn't necessarily thinking that the interdependent relationships we cultivate have to involve nature. clearly they don't. but do we have them? and what are they?
thinking alot about specificity. if the todzhu vocabulary is so specific about reindeer, then what do i want/need to be specific about?
i hadn't read the comments until just now. frighteningly funny.
you've got a few ways to say whiskey, right? what else you gots? how bout the art terminology? i'll bet you got fifteen ways to say shitty art...
yeah, exactly. i'm not interested in making art about whiskey or shitty art. i'm interested in the place where the lines get blurred but your vision gets clearer. i know you might argue whiskey can do that. maybe for some. it just numbs me, to be honest.
westerners or easterners, everyone is used to their way of seeing. a way of seeing immediately becomes the surface of things. i would argue that you can't get closer to the core of anything because--
1. there is no core/ the core shifts according to the point of view.
unless there is an observer at a stationary point observing the actor piercing a surface, no real piercing is taking place.
2. there are no boundaries/ boundaries are ever changing at least
where is the place that the lines get blurred and your vision gets clearer? and i wouldn't argue that whiskey does that. i'm a beer man.
art about whiskey and shitty art sounds pretty great to me, though. jackson pollack? wait, i think he preferred wine. that's what you always see in the photos.
have you ever been completely numb, with tears streaming down your cheeks? (no booze involved.) it's amazing, and frightening.
Post a Comment