In learning about this online, one thing led to another and I found out about “amaetemo iidesuka” 甘えてもいいですか? (can I relax and be my vulnerable self around you?)
“I am sad” doesn’t at all mean that sadness is my defining characteristic. It usually means sadness is a temporary state.
Non-linguists trying themselves at linguistics always often come up with pseudo facts like this.
You obviously know nothing about language. When I say “I’m here”, what I am saying is that I now and forever identify as the grocery store parking lot we decided to meet at. And when I say “I’m running”, I am saying that I have become the very concept of speed.
For normal people yes, for people who lack emotional regulation, “I am sad” can be an identity because you might get stuck in it for years at a time. Decades.
I think the author here is speaking to those people more than just your average joe who could care less about the distinction between state and characteristic because they understand the difference already.
It would be more correct to say “I feel sad”, but colloquially “I am sad” is used for the same thing.
Translating, conjugating and undestanding “To Be” is always fraught with peril. :)
Language does shape how we think, so it’s possible that saying it that way has a subconscious effect. I guess.
Without a doubt.
Language and how we specifically say things are huge. It’s why we are big pushing to redefine a host of things now.
We are meant to use “I feel” statements instead of indirectly blaming others with you statements. Using more specific pronouns to avoid little harms that can build up. To say more specific and less derogatory things like unhoused or inclusive things like people of color. It all adds up.
This won’t be the solution or the cure for depression but every little bit helps. If you have depression and are stuck, the making a small differentiation that you FEEL sad instead of BEING sad can be just enough to get you in gear for that day at least. That can be huge.
I read 1984 as a teen, and there’s a huge (dry) section in the middle where Orwell basically does a treatise on language and how it affects behavior, and I remember thinking it was boring and far-fetched.
Nowadays, I understand that it’s the most important aspect of the control in the novel.
Exactly.
The way we speak is so important. Think about when people throw out something like “that movie was bad”, “that restaurant sucks”. That’s making it objective. It ends the conversation. There is no room for improvement or talk at all. In their minds those things are bad and that’s the end of it.
You see this a lot in online communities, especially gaming.
If they instead said “I didn’t like x”, a conversation can be had. Now there is a chance they could like that thing if something we’re adjusted. By changing how we say something we can be open others opinions, to differences we share.
Language is powerful.
I mostly agree with you, but I do find it interesting how some languages and therefore cultures account for things like this. I saw a Sunn M’Cheaux video about it and it was super interesting!
Spanish is somewhat similar. Scared isn’t something you are, it’s something you have (tengo miedo, lit. ‘I have fear’). Emotions are also ‘put on you’ instead of making you a certain way. Ex: me puso feliz translates as ‘it made me happy,’ but literally is ‘it put happiness on me.’
German (if I’m remembering right from my high school language class days), does the same thing as well. It’s not ‘I am hungry’, it’s ‘I have hunger’.
(If there’s any actual German readers/speakers and I misspoke, I apologize. This was almost 15 years ago at this point!)
…no? In the literal examples given in the post, they would be translated as english
I’m sad: estoy triste I’m anxious: estoy ansioso/a
That’s why I said somewhat similar and gave different examples than the ones in the OP. The non-literal language involved in talking about emotions being different between language groups in some situations was interesting to me.
Yeah we have that in English, too. We use the word “feel”. 🙄
English French Literal French Spanish Literal Spanish Japanese (Sorta) Literal Japanese I’m hungry J’ai faim I have hunger Tengo hambre O Estoy hambriento/a I have hunger OR I am (temporarily) hungry Onaka ga suita Regarding stomach: empty I’m angry Je suis fâché I am angry Estoy enojado/a I am (temporarily) angry Watashi wa okotte imasu Regarding me: angry is I’m cold J’ai froid I have cold Tengo frio I have cold Samui OR Samuidesu Cold OR It’s cold I’m scared J’ai peur I have fear Estoy asustado/a I am (temporarily) scared Kowai OR Watashi wa kowaidesu Scary OR Regarding me: scared/scary is I’m brave Je suis courageux I’m brave (courageous) Soy valiente I am (permanently) brave Watashi wa yūkan’na Regarding me: brave Languages are fun. French switches between “I have” and “I am” for these sorts of things. Spanish mostly uses “I am” but it has two versions of “I am”, one that’s used generally for more permanent states of things, one that’s used for more temporary states. As a result, “I’m scared but I’m brave” uses one for the temporary condition of being scared, but one for the more permanent condition of being brave.
Japanese has its own whole system that is so different from English that it’s hard to directly translate. In japanese “wa” marks the topic of a sentence, and can often be omitted if it’s obvious. So you could just say “cold” or “brave” if it’s obvious you’re talking about yourself, or you can say “Watashi wa” which sort-of translates as “regarding me” or “about me”. The particle “wa” is something used in Japanese to mark the topic of a sentence. Japanese doesn’t have verb-person agreement, so there’s no “I am”, “you are”, “he is”. There’s instead something vaguely like “regarding me: is” If you wanted to tell someone they were brave you’d change the topic of the sentence to them and say “Anata wa yūkan’na”.
Japanese also uses the same word for “scary” and “scared” so you need contextual clues or other words to differentiate between “I am scared” vs. “I am scary”. There’s a different Japanese particle “ga” that is similar but has a narrower focus. Instead of the whole sentence being about something, it’s just the previous word. So, I’m hungry becomes “my stomach is empty” but more literally: “specifically regarding stomach: empty”.
None of this really makes any logical sense. Languages are weird, and the things that are the most commonly said are the weirdest. What does “I am hungry” really mean, that I am the very definition of hunger? That whole condition changes when you eat a sandwich? What does “I have fear” mean? I have it in a basket? Does “I feel fear” mean that I can sense its texture with my fingers? In English we mostly “are” things like hunger or fear. But, for some reason it’s “I have a feeling” Now it’s like the other European languages where feelings are something you have, not something you are.
This guy languages.
How about German? Being the other main language behind the drunk hodgepodge that is English, it’s worth looking into that
Yeah, I ran out of columns. I looked at it and it’s somewhere between English and one of the Romance languages.
I’m scared but I’m brave is “Ich habe Angst, aber ich bin mutig” -> I have fear but I am brave
Personally, I wouldn’t use “regarding” for “ga” as you did. I think that’s more for “wa.”
Yeah, I don’t know of a better way of indicating “ga”, if you do let me know and I’ll update it.
Fundamental misunderstanding of English.
“I am sad” – am here is a copula. It indicates a link between the subject (I) and subject-complement (sad). In this case, it’s saying “subject (I) has property (sad).” It does not equate the subject and subject-complement.
Not all languages work like this. In Mandarin for instance, 我是伤心* (wǒ (I) shì (am) shāngxīn (sad)*) would be seen as grammatically incorrect or at least weird. This would literally mean “I am sad” (adjectives in Mandarin operate as stative verbs, so the correct way to say this is without a copula – i.e. 我很伤心 (wǒ (I) hěn (quite/very) shāngxīn (sad)). (You could drop the 很 (quite), and just say 我伤心, but the connotation in this case is that you’re setting up for a juxtaposition, e.g. “I’m sad, you’re not sad.”))
I will say, as someone who lived through chronic pain for years, saying I have pain, rather than saying I’m in pain feels quite distinct and… Less hopeless? You’re not incorrect, you’re just not recognizing the impact and power words can have. There are whole therapies that specialize in reshaping our narratives, despite “I am sad” and “I feel sad” essentially meaning the same thing grammatically.
If it helps you to view language this way, then I think that’s great. But you should also recognize that yours is not a universal understanding of what’s connoted by this grammatical structure.
I really sympathize with chronic pain, as I also suffer chronic pain. But for me, I don’t think changing the words I use would really help me.
And that’s completely ok if it doesn’t help you, I don’t mean to invalidate your own experience. I was using a personal anecdote to show how language can influence thought, though there are better examples- like the Australian Aboriginal tribal languages that lack words for “left” and “right” and refer to everything relative to cardinal directions. As a result, they have impeccable senses of direction.
Or another example, linguistic relativity in colours (ie. Languages without a word for a colour like pink might have trouble distinguishing pink from red).
And if reframing words wasn’t helpful for some people, there wouldn’t be Narrative Therapy centres still running.
“In pain”, to me implies that it’s happening right now, where as “having pain” is a long term thing.
Fair! To me it meant something that I was carrying with me, and made it feel more transient.
I learned to work with language when I was experiencing chronic pain, too - it helped my mental framework a lot
Ah interesting.
That’s true. ‘I am tall’ ≠ “I am height”
You are grammatically right. But in practice the fact that am has also the meaning of equating the subject to the object puts the idea in people’s head (at some degree, unconsciously, at least) that they equate to what they feel.
As a Spanish native I was very surprised when I learnt that “soy” and “estoy” both are translated as “I am” in English.
You can either be something because it is something inherent to your being “I am a happy person” or be something at this moment “I am happy”. Both are expressed by the same verb, but mean very different things. In Spanish it would be “Soy una persona feliz” and “Estoy feliz”.
Unless those differences have different words, this is more a linguist difference than a difference of feelings created by it inside people.
This is quite romantic, and I agree that we should be aware of our emotions as temporary, as clouds in the sky. However, the Irish language has not prevented the Irish people from having some of the highest rates of anxiety on Earth https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/anxiety-disorders-prevalence
In English it is usually stated as I feel lonely or sad. Most English speakers take this for granted. They don’t think people are sad, but that they are feeling sad.
I like to use acting like when talking about negative behaviors to not define the person as a negative emotion. You are acting like a douche for instance as opposed to you are a douche.
This is one of those things where it’s not that deep.
Actually language plays a big part in our mental state, language processing is shown to play a huge role in the development and perception of our emotional states.
I’m aware.
People underestimate our ability to compensate for shortcomings of language. At the end of the day, you have to choose a way to say it.
To better understand what you’re saying, how would the Irish language’s way of expressing emotion change the development and perception of emotional states?
Purge emotions, replace with a Dreadnaught level artillery cannon.
If you’re bipolar you definitely are your emotions.
The same language rules are used for control/ownership of objects as well. A book is on you, (or with you), as is your car and your clothes.
That said, the concepts in english aren’t foreign or lost in translation. When the language became more than a tool for people to communicate, miscommunications start happening.
The English word depressed comes from Latin roots and means pushed down. An old Norse term for the same condition was called hugsott, which translates directly into thought-sick. To me the latter term is more useful because the person suffering has the chance to change his own thoughts, while the former term implies that the condition is caused by factors outside the person’s control.
Both can be true, though.
sapir-whorf, annoyingly, strikes again
This will put a lot of sadness on irish dads who cannot make the “I am dad” jokes
“There is Dad on me”
