This is Sapir-Whorf thinking. My understanding as a non-linguist is that this has never been proven. I know there is a strong/weak form of the hypothesis, but can't remember what the distinction is.

> but can't remember what the distinction is.

The strong hypothesis says that language determines and bounds your thinking, the weak hypothesis is that it influences and conditions your thinking.

Thanks...weak sounds a lot more plausible than fully binding.

Is it?

Could your language affect your ability to save?

https://www.ted.com/talks/keith_chen_could_your_language_aff...

Perhaps, but y=x+1 and u=v+1 are the same, even if they use different terms. Likewise, y=x+1 !== y=x-1, even though they use the same terms.

It's really unclear to me that much harm will be done if everyone speaks the same language, and it's clear to me that there will be great benefits. That's an easy position for me to take as a primary speaker of the world's dominant language. It's also no skin off my back if other language groups wish to continue maintaining their own languages. But I guess that those which aren't strong enough will fade over the centuries, as many already did in the past.

Not all knowledge is logic or maths.

It's an analogy.

That's just not how language works. Gödel, Escher, Bach really hammered this home for me. Many ideas are easier to express in one language or another, to the point that they are practically inexpressible in another language.

This is even true in math. Based on the set of axioms you allow, you can prove certain facts. A math with different axioms may have completely different theorems, and some observable real world behavior can be better modeled under one set of axioms than another.

Language could be described as a math for personal expression and everyday life, and each language has its own axioms and theorems.

> That's just not how language works. Gödel, Escher, Bach really hammered this home for me. Many ideas are easier to express in one language or another, to the point that they are practically inexpressible in another language.

I am very skeptical that this happens commonly, or that the necessary terms couldn't be ported over to the common language if needed.

How would you translate this?

> Why can a man never starve in the Great Desert? Because he can eat the sand which is there. But what brought the sandwiches there? Why, Noah sent Ham, and his descendants mustered and bred.

It would not be a big loss if this sentence were never expressed. I allowed for edge cases in my previous comment, and this is such a one.