There are finite number of letters. If we limit the length of a word to finite amount of letters, the number of all possible words is also finite.
If there were infinite number of letters in a word and this word consisted of infinite amount of sounds, the pronunciation of a word would never end.
As there are finite number of words, also the number of consepts formed from these words is finite.
On the other hand, if we would create consepts in mathematical way, we could have infinite number of consepts. Though, all of them couldn’t be explicitly ever written nor said in finite amount of time.
I’ve sometimes wonderd, that how many meaningful natural languages of humans’ from all of these finite number of words could be formed — also how many grammars. What we understand by “meaningful language” might be hard to define…
This month I decided to translate into English some of my Google+ page’s Philosophy collection’s thoughts written in Finnish. Some thoughts are quite hard to translate, since direct translation often changes the meaning too much. With an alternate choice of words there may be a slight difference in the meaning, but it is often more close to the original meaning of the thought than the direct translation.
In the Finnish language there are no prepositions or articles for any words, all the words have different forms depending on the context.
The nouns have most forms. The amount of these forms has varied in time. Nowadays there are 14 forms for one word with 15 grammatical cases. The accusative grammatical case always appears in the same form than some other grammatical case of the same word. In the dialects there exists at least one grammatical case, that doesn’t exist in the written standard language.
Furthermore, in practice every language culture as such is slightly different, so that the direct translations are not often sensible. One must choose words, that most closely match the original meaning. In addition, every language culture lives its own life, varying and changing in time…
Finally to the translated thoughts…
1. A thought, I came up at one night, that can be interpreted in multiple ways: The nature doesn’t betray. That’s way it should be respected.
[To the word ‘betray’ one online dictionary gives 26 alternatives to the original Finnish word ‘pettää’ that is in form ‘petä’ (Luonto ei petä) in the original Google+ post.]
2. Bad help can be more harmful, than helping not at all. – Can help in those cases (always) really be considered as help?
3. The philosophy of the lyrics in the love songs: The lyrics should not be defining; otherwise the freedom and full potential of love is missing.
4. My childhood’s (I was 12 years old) pondering at the middle of the elementary school’s class immersed in my own thoughts: If anyone could make the choice between good and evil, why would anyone choose evil?
5. The next thought is pondering of a Finnish saying (though, this saying may be somewhat widespread, I don’t know where it may originally come from), that could be translated as follows: ”The most important thing isn’t the goal, but the journey.”
Sometimes these kinds of old sayings may have arisen from blunders: For example there may have been people on their journey to somewhere, but they have got lost. Then someone may have said to relieve the situation this saying, that has left its mark in life/language.
If we assume, that the mentioned saying has arisen from some blunder, it may not be wise to take the saying as an actual guideline — particularly if in the assumed blundering the goal that may have been set, had never been reached. On the other hand, the saying can be used in a reasonable way too: If, for example, some journey has ended up by getting lost, what could be better way to cheer up each other, than to say: ”Well, the goal isn’t so important, but the journey.” To add some humor from the popular Finnish TV comedy series ”Kummeli”: ”Tomorrow again.” 🙂
6. [I had shortened the next one a bit, because of different kind of humor that the Finnish comedians often make (at least used to make) compared to many others.]
Humor is a difficult field. For example everyone can (probably) clown around, but it isn’t always humor neither it can be considered as comedy always. To succeed for example in sketch comedy the actors and/or actresses must enter into one’s role in the way, the viewers can experience the comedy so that it doesn’t look like acting; it is particularly bad case, if the viewers notice, that the actors and/or actresses laugh to their own jokes as they are acting.
In addition, from the point of view of morale it’s not good, if any humor has been made by someone else’s expense (from real life). The mentioned may, for example, cause different kinds of negative phenomena, for example discrimination of some people.
The test of mental health is, that can the viewer make a difference between the fact and the fiction.
7. Living the life in a humble way, without expecting or asking anything from life, life can reward one and give something ”back”; when it’s its time, life knows it. This present or gift of life is something one may not despise nor can one be proud of; otherwise life may take more than it gives, take even more, than it has ever given.
8. Sometimes being still, by stopping everything, giving oneself time for a ”moment”, doing nothing, being ”loose” from everything, can take one forwards in life more than an express train – and faster.
9. In time a lie becomes unbearable in truth.
A lie is like a cancer, that tries to take over its host, in the end to kill the host, that is, hiding the truth by blinding and by leading its host into darkness. Finally the cloak, that the lie represents, falls into impossible and truth gets its place; for when the darkness of a lie is big enough, the lie is also a lie to itself, so that the lie is cancer to itself too, exhausting itself; so the lie dies.
10. According to the assumption/supposition as the Big Bang happened, also the laws of the nature were originated. According to the assumption/supposition that, what we call life, is evolutionary phenomenon, in practice in many sense ”dynamic”.
Now, can one for certain assume, that in the field of physics the study of the laws of the nature are in life’s varied and dynamic evolution in certain ”static”, that is, always the same after they have first been discovered and modeled ”for the first time” in so called sensible accuracy?
What if the chaos theory and the fact that it is utilized in many fields of sciences, reflects in fact in addition the dynamical nature of the laws of the nature themselves too, somehow?
If the laws of the nature are in fact somehow ”dynamic” besides life itself, can ”the theory/theories of everything” be forgotten, if it/them doesn’t/don’t ”live in the spirit of the time”.
The previous thought of mine is really only a poetic question and speculation…
There are some more thoughts on my Google+ page that are both in Finnish and in English and there are more to come…