Note that Orwell promotes an hard form of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis called linguistic determinism meaning that a language would make it impossible think certain thoughts. This is obviously wrong.
Have you ever experienced anything for which you didn't have the words to explain? This already proves that you can feel and think things that are not easily expressed in the languages you know. Also some people don't even think in words but are more visual thinkers.
But even for the softer version, linguistic relativism, these is not much hard evidence.
You subjective experience is not easily measurable. Yes, the act of learning new languages can gives you new perspectives and enrich you as a person because it gives you access to a whole new culture but that is different to saying you can suddenly experience new forms of emotions because you didn't have the words for it before or see more colors.
I think its a mischaracterization to say Orwell promotes it. The State in 1984 wishes to reach this stage, but the book does not really demonstrate that they are able to.
> meaning that a language would make it impossible think certain thoughts. This is obviously wrong.
But is it necessarily actually wrong? Shame there's no word for this ubiquitous phenomenon, at least none that hasn't become so loaded it can't be used and taken seriously.
> Have you ever experienced anything for which you didn't have the words to explain? This already proves that you can feel and think things that are not easily expressed in the languages you know.
This is not the same thing - here you already have the thoughts, but lack the corresponding language. It is the inability to go in the other direction that is hypothesized. I'm pretty sure there's a word for this but I can't recall it....isomorphic, or something in that neighborhood?
> Note that Orwell promotes an hard form of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis
This is not what he was getting at at all. I think you've completely misunderstood an analogy in a work of fiction that was aiming to warn about the distortion of language for politics ends.
>Have you ever experienced anything for which you didn't have the words to explain?
Yes, and some of it I'm only aware because it can be easily expressed in one language but not another.
For example, "itadakimasu" in Japanese is a very simple phrase that you say when you start eating to signify appreciation for the food. It may surprise you that there is no suitable translation in English. "Thank you for the food." is awkward and strangely esoteric, "Amen." has religious implications that did not exist in "itadakimasu". "Itadakimasu" also means "to take", in this context meaning you will consume the food, but expressing that makes the English even more esoteric.
What's more, there's also "gochisou-sama", literally "Mr. Feast" (yes really), that you say when you're done eating to, again, signify appreciation for the food. "Thank you for the food." is again awkward and esoteric and doesn't fully translate the original phrase, but what's more Japanese clearly has two similar but very different concepts that cannot be adequately separated and expressed in English.
Moving away from Japanese, some languages like Spanish and French apply the concept of gender to their words and grammar. That's something completely foreign to me and I certainly can't think like that since I don't speak such languages.
The ease with which someone can conceptualize something depends significantly on their vocabulary, the language(s) they speak. If you don't know or can't speak certain words, you will naturally gravitate towards trains of thought that don't require as much complicated brain power.
Speaking more fundamentally, knowing or not knowing a language determines whether you can or can't understand someone. That difference is going to vastly change how you think about him, demonstrating once again that language affects thought.
This is why freedom of speech has become such an important human right and why it's a very good thing to learn more languages than just your native one. Speaking more languages opens your mind to more versatile trains of thought that would otherwise not be possible.
Suggesting that language doesn't affect thought is a very ignorant claim, particularly in this day and age when more people of all backgrounds desperately need to communicate more effectively with each other.
The less people communicate, the more misunderstandings and animosities there will be which will ultimately lead to Many Bad Things(tm).
Recently, people are greatly incentivized to join a group and excommunicate those outside of it. This is a problem if it goes beyond superficial things like Windows vs. Linux, into things like culture and politics.
I'm surprised and saddened this needs to be explicitly stated here of all places.
Sorry to nitpick, but not really. If we're being literal it's "honorably rushing about on your horse": chisō describes the work that had do be done to prepare the feast, running here and there to gather the ingredients. The "sama" doesn't mean Mr., it's just another honorific tag like go-/o-.
Have you ever experienced anything for which you didn't have the words to explain? This already proves that you can feel and think things that are not easily expressed in the languages you know. Also some people don't even think in words but are more visual thinkers.
But even for the softer version, linguistic relativism, these is not much hard evidence.
You subjective experience is not easily measurable. Yes, the act of learning new languages can gives you new perspectives and enrich you as a person because it gives you access to a whole new culture but that is different to saying you can suddenly experience new forms of emotions because you didn't have the words for it before or see more colors.
I recommend this Tom Scott video on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmZdGo6b5yA