Language can, I believe, influence cultural benchmarks - to a degree.
For instance, in Scottish Gaelic consider expressions of personal possession.
A Gael would would more usually say ‘Mo dhachaidh.’ literally ‘My home.’
Whereas they would most commonly say ‘An taigh agam.’ literally ‘The house at me’ meaning ‘My house’ rather than ‘Mo thaigh’.
Similarly they would say ‘Tha an cnactan orm droch.’ literally ‘Be the cold(ill) on me bad.’ meaning ‘My cold is bad’ rather than ‘Tha mo chnactan droch.’
Again they would say ‘Mo laimh.’ literally ‘My arm’ rather than ‘An lamh orm’ (the arm on me) or ‘An lamh agam’.(the arm at me’.
The difference is down to one of permanence of ownership, a subtlety absent in English.
Something which you possess but not necessarily permanently, like a house, whereas a home, traditionally at least, was considered something belonging to you permanently even if you had long left the area you were raised in, your home.
A cold is a temporary possession.
An arm is a permanent possession. (Hopefully).
Not sure if similar exists in Welsh, garjones might enlighten us on that.
There is a slightly similar thing in Spanish with choice between ‘es’ and ‘esta’.
In German too there is the difference between ‘in’ and ‘im’.
With the above examples it is not too fanciful to imagine that this might imbue a subtle difference in the attitudes of Gaelic speakers to materialism, compared to that in English monoglots.
However, while a great admirer of Chomsky, I’ve never really bought in to his claims for the effect of language.
I think such effects are, by and large, greatly exaggerated.
I have yet to come across an idea which cannot be thoroughly communicated in any language.
I actually thought there were some strong Coming to America vibes in Black Panther.
I say we officially retcon Samuel L Jackson’s appearance in Coming To America as being a young Nick Fury.
You’re not the only one…
It might fit since that was the 80’s and Captain Marvel is set in the 90’s. The flashback scenes in Black Panther that were set in the US especially had the Coming to America vibe to me.
No the permanence aspect is not part of the language but there are similar divergences.
Time is more abstract leading to the Wenglish idiom of “I’ll be there now in a minute”. Place similarly not as specific leading to the Wenglish idioms “over by there and over by here”.
If we could just get a scene with Captain Marvel eating in a McDowell’s that would be perfect.
Wasn’t it called McDonnel’s?
I think the step before this is about time itself. The notion that time, in a sequential sense, is not something that exists independently of us, but rather a function of our consciousness isn’t new. If you accept that as a premise, the next step is way less improbable than warp drive, really.
No. That’s the shadow chancellor.
Heh. Yeah, you’re right. I’ve misremembered that for years. McDonnell’s is funnier IMO. We should get Landis to go back and change it.
I don’t, I think it’s ridiculous, anthropocentric thinking, up there with the universe revolving around the earth.
But I said I’d stop filling the thread up…
The problem is that argument boils down to “the movie did this impossible thing, and had this impossible thing as a result. I would have preferred this other impossible thing instead”
To take the example of Watchmen, how is a human being disintegrated by a radioactive field, but then coming back to life as a blue god with full awareness of determinism more feasible than aliens who perceive time differently and are able to teach others how to do the same?
Personally, I’d rather look at the difference in how the stories use future knowledge. In Watchmen, Jon is trapped - he knows what is going to happen at every point in his life, and he is going through the motions even down to the emotions he expresses. In Arrival Louise first uses her new awareness to figure out how to stave off an armed conflict, but then has the choice of going through with her fledgling relationship with Ian, despite knowing that it will end in divorce and their daughter’s tragic death. But because the story is told in medias res, we have future knowledge of the choices she makes, mirroring her eventual revelation. It’s the same conundrum, but approached from the opposite sides of the problem.
I find human cognitive biases fascinating. The idea that suspension of disbelief stretches far enough to allow the effect, but not the cause is a prime example of this.
Oh, I’ve got some bad news for you…
Hey, I raised this example more than 35 minutes ago.
I tuned in mostly because I like Josh Dallas. I liked the premise as well. He is still playing the caring Dad he did in OUAT so that got me. His sister seems a mess because her whole life is gone but it looks like she will at least get her job back. I liked the researcher as well(what would you do if while you were gone something you created became incredibly successful.?).
I don’t worry about episodic TV though because between ON Demand and my DVR i have a great capacity to catch missed programs. Also I can wait out shows. I liked the premiere of the Crossing but I let a couple of eps pass by so when it was cancelled i was not disappointed or invested.
Raise one kid on nothing but baby talk - ga-ga goo-goo 24/7; and another (say, an identical twin for some scientific possibility of comparison) speaking to them like an adult. See what happens when the language skills kick in.
Huh, well to me the problem with that time travel paradox in Arrival is plainly a jarring narrative shift. They were obviously going for a “smart” approach to a “first contact” kind of situation. But then at the end they fuck it up with something that just doesn’t make sense.
I’m not sure it’s got anything to do with anything else other than just plain bad writting