To elaborate, I have a theory that the core of every language in the world hinges on some concepts that serve to guide native speakers through their lives and through the ups and downs of their lifelong relationship with their native tongue. Languages ‘morph’ and have evolved in accordance with the nature, meaning and scope of their “buzzwords”, or “buzz-concepts”, as I prefer to call them due to translation complexities.
Considering components of language as “signs” that direct to meaning and significance helps us understand the differences between languages. Every single language on earth has its own special, unique approach to making use of the “linguistic sign”. In fact, this is literally, exactly, ultimately what Buzz-Concepts are: the concepts that subconsciously dictate to speakers how you go about making use of the network of signs that make up your mother tongue(s). In English we seek to be “successful” in doing so. In French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese etc. native speakers are all ferociously “passionate” about their mother tongues. In Russian they are “perfectionists” when it comes to making use of the linguistic sign. In Chinese, the Language of Processing, they seek to attain the ideal of “efficacy” in making use of their linguistic signs. There are so many wonderful examples; so many languages with enchanting ideologies, or extraordinary rationales for the above-mentioned – it is honestly insane.
Sense and nuance were inherently philosophical in Ancient Egyptian. Hieroglyphs can be understood as “metaphysical language”, with Ancient Egyptian having been the Language of Philosophising, or of Mystique… Sense (nuance) in languages around the world… In English it’s flexible… In Italian it’s refined… In Korean it’s logical… In Russian it’s evocative… In German it’s dynamic… In Arabic it’s profound… In spite of what many say, the world’s languages actually differ extremely on the level of sense and nuance. To the extent that the very experience, nature, substance and meaning if the very concept of language vary from primary family to family. Again: considering components of language as signs that conduce to meaning, every single language on Earth has its own unique way and methodology of making use of linguistic signs – Buzz-Concepts simply control how we all do so. For Africans, the linguistic sign is very tangible; they sort of objectify it. This is why abstraction does not come naturally to them: pretty much everything thus acquires concrete form to them. For Native Americans, the linguistic sign is totally abstract and therefore fluid. Using language is a very dynamic activity for them. In Europe we love to attach prestige to use of language. By the way: NOPE in other cultures they don’t do this, not sharing our appetites… Sense… In Europe it’s glorious… In East Asia it’s efficient… In Africa it’s treasured…!
Chomsky and his lackeys will spoonfeed you the fundamentals of linguistic universals, but here you shall find evidence aplenty that the opposing doctrine to linguistic universalism, that of linguistic relativism is the one that corresponds to reality. Linguistic relativism came to the forefront of linguistics in the form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the 1920s. The hypothesis asserts that “the structure of a language determines a native speaker’s perception and categorization of experience,” and was met with widespread criticism and dismissal. Noam Chomsky entered the picture a couple of decades later and a universal consensus was established in favour of linguistic universalism. Linguistic relativity postulates that one’s experience of life is relative to one’s language, while linguistic universalism dictates that we are all like fish swimming together in one big collective pool of highly standardised human cognition, in short.
“We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language”
Benjamin Whorf
“Human beings… are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society.”
Edward Sapir
“A different language is a different vision of life,” said Federico Fellini. Indeed, it is undeniable that the language(s) you speak as a native has a supremely profound influence on the precise ways in which you understand the world around you. But sadly… It is a known thing that one academic field is intrinsically biased, although people don’t know which field it is or how it is biased. My work on the Buzz-Concept Project has led me to believe that it is in fact linguistics that is biased, and that it is biased from a Western perspective. They don’t have words in Chinese (as we know them, at least). They go by concept. Linguistic study is generated overwhelmingly from just a handful of linguistic spheres and generalisation is relied upon far too heavily as a thinking strategy. Some very important spheres thus get neglected and, thanks to the monumental diversity between different languages of the world, our perspectives and capacity to understand language have been heavily tainted by Western bias – more specifically, Indo-European bias, which is the mega-family major world languages including English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Greek, Farsi and Hindi belong to.
This failure within the discipline of linguistics has had colossal sociopolitical implications across the world due to the existence of these things I have termed Buzz-Concepts. Western thinkers sit atop this pile for a reason but things have gone too far and entire continents are being stumped here. Buzz-Concept clashing forms a very real, dangerous, practical barrier to human progress, particularly in the developing world. It’s stunning how much insight you can gain into a culture just by knowing your Buzz-Concepts.
The Buzz-Concept Project 