Oh, I really enjoy your insight here.  The sterility of scientific language contrasts with the experience of beauty and wonder of life. Your analysis is a good highlight on how some concepts are not always easy to translate, particularly when the source and target language tend towards divergent assumptions on the relationships found within the language. English’s object orientation seems to be tricky to try to fit with what seems to be a more relationship oriented set of languages, languages that are less related to engineering needs and more related to needs-of-itselves; as if Newton’s concept of inertia was expanded to include the greater variety from the medieval “impetus” and branching further to have many more parallel concepts of impetus that could cover more forces and with similar unseen origins. 

Oh, I really enjoy your insight here.  The sterility of scientific language contrasts with the experience of beauty and wonder of life. Your analysis is a good highlight on how some concepts are not always easy to translate, particularly when the source and target language tend towards divergent assumptions on the relationships found within the language. English’s object orientation seems to be tricky to try to fit with what seems to be a more relationship oriented set of languages, languages that are less related to engineering needs and more related to needs-of-itselves; as if Newton’s concept of inertia was expanded to include the greater variety from the medieval “impetus” and branching further to have many more parallel concepts of impetus that could cover more forces and with similar unseen origins. 

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× five = 35

Leave a Reply