Replying to LO25573 --
Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all.
I wanted to give this topic the title "Can we change the evolution of
language." But I think it will fit in with one of the topics which Leo
Minnigh is very fond of. Thus I have linked it to one of the last
contributions to this topic by Richard Seel.
It is becoming clear to an increasing number of thinkers that wholeness
plays a crucial role in diverse processes like evolution, creativity,
learning and management. Exactly what this this role is, is one thing --
wholeness appears to be conditional (requisite) to these processes. But
speaking of wholeness in different languages is another thing -- two
languages of the same family may give different flavours of meaning of one
and the same thing.
Let me illustrate it with English (ENG) and my own mother tongue Afrikaans
(AFR). The translation given by ENG-AFR dictionaries is
"wholeness=heelheid" based on the stem "whole=heel". The stem in both
langauges evolved from the same ancient Germanic (GER) root "hael". Thus
these two stems have the same flavour of meaning -- entire, complete,
unbroken, intact, etc. But the suffix "-ness" in ENG and "-heid" in AFR
developed from different roots and thus have entire different meanings. As
such they are resonsible for giving the root+suffix construction different
flavours of meaning.
The suffix "-ness" in ENG evolved from the ancient GER root "nesten". This
"nesten" itself has evolved into the modern "nest" for ENG and "nes" for
AFR. It is the name for the home of a bird. AFR also have the suffix
"-nis" corresponding to the ENG "-ness" in words such as
"deernis"=compassion, "belewenis"=adventure and "belydenis"=confession.
These AFR words touch the heart="hart" with their suffix "-nis". It is
reminescent of the wide usage of "nesten" in ancient GER for any place
sponsoring a safe recluse. However, AFR has far less words with suffix
"-nis" than ENG with suffix "-ness" as we will soon see.
The suffix "-heid" in AFR corresponds to the ENG suffix "-hood" and also
"-head". Both have evolved from the ancient GER root "heafod". That word
refered to that part of the human body which contains all 5 sensory organs
and in which thinking takes place. This "heafod" itself has evolved into
the modern "head" for ENG and "hoof " for AFR. The noun "haefod" was
linked to any condition which required careful sensory experience or
thoughtful contemplation. However, AFR has far more words with suffix
"-heid" than ENG with suffix "-hood". The reason is that when most words
in ENG ending with "-ness" get translated into AFR, the ending is changed
into "-heid".
Obviously, the ENG word "wholeness" translated into AFR "heelheid" is the
first example we have encountered. Hundreds of other examples can be given,
but I want to focus on six of them together with
wholeness="heelheid"
live(ly)ness="lewendigheid"
sureness="sekerheid"
fruitfulness="vrugbaarheid"
spar(s)eness="ylheid"
otherness="andersheid"
openness="openheid"
Obviously, although vice versa most words get changed from the AFR ending
"-heid" into the ENG ending "-ness" when translated, a few words (perhaps
connected with authority) retain that ending like
"godheid"=godhead
"man(lik)heid"=manhood
Why this peculiar change of the ENG "-ness" into AFR "-heid" and vice
versa? I suspect it has to do with the fact that AFR (17th cent) emerged
many centuries after Old English (OE) itself emerged. When modern ENG
emerged it retained many of these OE words, just changing the spelling
somewhat. During the emergence of AFR, the focus was much more on the
rational centre (head="hoof") giving meaning to words than the during the
the emergence of OE where the emotional centre (heart="hart") intuitively
also contributed to meaning making. But I can be wrong since the AFR
ending "-heid" translates almost consistently into the modern GER ending
"-keit". The High German (mainly Schwabisch) from which it emerged is
itself much older than AFR.
Whatever the reason, allow me to test your head="hoof" and heart="hart" as
ENG rather than AFR speaking people. What does the following words do
to you mentally when I translate the AFR ending "-heid" not into the usual
ENG ending "-ness", but into the ending "-hood"?
wholeness="heelheid" => ' wholehood '
live(ly)ness="lewendigheid" => ' livehood '
sureness="sekerheid" => ' surehood '
fruitfulness="vrugbaarheid" => ' fruitfulhood '
spar(s)eness="ylheid" => ' sparehood '
otherness="andersheid" => ' otherhood '
openness="openheid" => ' openhood '
The single quotation marks ' xxx ' indacte that xxx is not a standard ENG
or AFR word.
I suspect that for most of you ENG fellow learners the first awareness
will be that of unfamiliar - strange - alien. That is to be expected
because should I do the following translation vice versa
wholeness=" ' heelnis ' "
live(ly)ness=" ' lewenis ' "
sureness=" ' sekernis ' "
fruitfulness=" ' vrugvolnis ' "
spar(s)eness=" ' spaarnis ' "
otherness=" ' andersnis ' "
openness=" ' opennis ' "
my fellow AFR speaking people's first awareness will be in such a manner.
I am very much interested in all your emerging awarenesses, from the first
strong one to the very last weak one. Let us have a dialogue on it. What
mental awarenesses will emerge should you use, for example, ' wholehood '
and not wholeness?
Should I do this modification in a poem, then they will merely frown
because it will be the first time ever they will encounter these novel
words. But then they will immediately try to figure out the meaning of
these novel words because of the very fact that in a POEM one is allowed
to modify words CREATIVELY. However, should I do it in prose, the majority
will even object vehemently when encountering these words, not merely for
the first time, but every time they occur. Why is it like that? Is it not
perhaps that in PROSE one is not allowed to modify words CREATIVELY?
If we want to improve our creativity, can we do it effectively should we
retain this constraint that in the language itself which we use, we do not
make creative changes, except in conventional domains like poems and
songs. (Winfried and Chris, have you perceived this as a most extraodinary
example to be investigated by TOC?)
I have specifically linked to Richard's contribution, even a couple of
months old, because he ends with:
>Bacon, Newton, Young, Maxwell, Faraday, Dirac,
>Hawking... I think that this list can hold its own
>against any other linguistic group - but then,
>I'm biased!
>
>Yours, tongue in cheek,
We are more than a linguistic group. We are a Cyber Learning Organisation
(CLO). We all have one thing in common and that is that we cannot stop
learning. Cannot stop learning? I wonder because why do we have this wierd
constraint that in prose we do not make creative modifications to the
language which we use as we are using it?
Is it a constraint or is it a convention which has become a constraint for
most people? I wonder. One of the deserts which I am very fond of, is
Namaqualand. There the people (Namaqualanders) speak AFR. Listening to
their creative modifications to the langauge during speach is one of my
greatest joys. I will use the novel words "heelnis", "lewenis",
"sekernis", "vrugvolnis", "spaarnis", "andernis" and "opennis" carefully
within context and within a couple of minutes they will use them too in
their responses. These Namaqualanders are really people who cannot stop
learning.
I want to use in AFR the novel words
. "heelnis", "lewenis", "sekernis", "vrugvolnis", "spaarnis",
. "andernis" and "opennis"
rather than the common words
. "heelheid", "leweheid", "sekerheid", "vrugvolheid", "spaarheid",
. "anderheid" and "openheid"
because the ending "-nis" in AFR has the heart dimension in addition to
the head dimension of the ending "-heid". Of all people, it is the very
Namaqualanders who say of a person who uses to much such heady
words ending in "-heid", that this person is "vol geite" (full of "geite").
The "geit" is not only a sound modification of "-heid", but is actually
the name for desert lizards of the gecko kinds. There are large numbers of
many kinds of these geckos in Namaqualand. During night they can make a
lot of noise like frogs and toads which are virually absent in the desert.
During the day they are forever rummaging around, coming even into houses
in search for food like insects.
Perhaps these Namaqualanders are intuitively aware that the AFR language
is in need of more "-nis" (-ness) and less "-heid" (-hood) words. Perhaps
they are intuitively aware that AFR needs to express the heart="hart"
better so that it matches expressing the head="hoof". But what I am deeply
aware of is that, for example, the word "heelnis" tells me much more of
sponsoring a safe home for creativity (like the ancient GER word "nesten"
once did) than the word "heelheid". The word "heelnis" (wholeness) works
like Jan Smuts articulated it in the 1926 with the word holism, but the
word "heelheid" (' wholehood ') not. He said that increasing wholeness is
the driving force for evolution form atoms in the physical realm up to
personalities in the spiritual realm. I think he would also have agreed
that increasing wholeness "sponsors a safe home" for our creativity like
it does for evolution.
As I understand it, "entropy production" is a necessary condition for
creativity (as for evolution, learning and management) but not a
sufficient condition. The suffiency condition is for me rather the 7-D
manifold which can be named by "wholeness", "liveness", "sureness",
"fruitfulness", "spareness", "otherness" and "openness". They "sponsor a
safe home" for our creativity. They from in an ecolological sense the
"niche" (also related to "nesten" through even more ancient Indogermanic
roots) in which creativity as a specimen (as well as all other specimens
like learning, teaching, managing and believing) have to keep on evolving.
Leo, thank you once again for your wisdom in introducing this topic of
"Dialogue, language, learning" to our LO-dialogue so that we can link to
it time and again. Perhaps you could comment on the Dutch angle, but I
know you are fascinated by creativity itself so that your inputs on the
creativity angle will be very much appreciated.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.