Living in the present

In doing the research for my last post, I stubbled upon an article in Der Spiegel, the German newsweekly similar to U.S. News, on the Pirahã tribe in Brazil. Their language, spoken by approximately 300 people along the Amazon, is one of the simplist languages ever recorded. 

What is most intriguing about the language is it is grounded in the present. There is no means of expressing the future nor the past. There are no numbers. I quote: 

"He explains the core of Pirahã culture with a simple formula: "Live here and now." The only thing of importance that is worth communicating to others is what is being experienced at that very moment. "All experience is anchored in the presence," says Everett, who believes this carpe-diem culture doesn't allow for abstract thought or complicated connections to the past -- limiting the language accordingly.

Living in the now also fits with the fact that the Pirahã don't appear to have a creation myth explaining existence. When asked, they simply reply: "Everything is the same, things always are." The mothers also don't tell their children fairy tales -- actually nobody tells any kind of stories. No one paints and there is no art."

In recent years, some of the most popular self-help books – such as Eckhart Tolle's Power of Now – prod us to live in the now. It is not an easy thing to do because we are reminded of the passage of time everywhere we go, right down to how we speak to one another. The changing of the seasons pushes us forward and creates a 'future'. It's core to our consumer culture. It's hard to market 'new' without the concept of 'old.'

In order to really live in the now, it may make sense to move to a tropical climate where there are no seasons. It is easy for the Pirahã to say 'everything is the same' because they don't have to change the way they live; the weather is static.

I wouldn't mind trying for a little while. Monotony on the beach doesn't sound so bad in December. 

Does the English language create barriers to mathematical proficiency

I'm 3/4th through Malcom Gladwell's book. I really enjoy reading his work. It's simultaneously lyrical and informative.

I've had a few ah-has reading it but nothing compared to the passage I am in right now. His argument is the structure of the English language when it comes to expressing numbers inhibits math aptitude. He also maintains that the structure of the language is what makes many Asians cultures – Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Chinese derivative languages – so good at math because the language expresses numbers in a very rational and easy to manipulate way. 

In Chinese, they say ten-one, ten-two, ten-three instead of changing the spelling and structure. Starting from twenty it goes two-ten-one, two-ten-two, two-ten-three. Think about how much easier it is to calculate three-tens-seven plus two-tens-two. 

I started thinking about how numbers are expressed in the languages that I've studied. How does English compare to its' cousins Dutch and German? How does it compare to French? 

It seems as though English inherited its irregularity from the Dutch, if you go here and compare it to German, which is more regular. Old English – scroll to the end – is similar to Dutch, unsurprisingly. The numbers over 50 in French always drove me nuts – sixty-one, sixty-two, sixty-eleven, sixty-twelve, then four-twenty-one, four-twenty-two to four-twenty-eleven, four-twenty-twelve. But I'm sure it's useful in adding and subtracting. 

Should English reform its' expression of numbers? Given English has no 'governing body' compared to other languages – e.g. French, German, Dutch etc – it may take a while before that happens. The glacial progress of adopting the metric system illustrates the challenge.