The way I used the word sophisticated was very straight forward, as an synonym of complex. If you want to argue that the Piraha language is as complex as English, go right ahead. But I can confidently argue it's more complex, and I don't consider it condescending, elitist and discriminatory.
What has complexity to do with sophistication? Or usefulness? Or expressiveness?
Are you saying complication equals sophistication? So much for Mondrian's painting, then. So much for haiku. Sorry, guys, you're hicks from Hicksville.
As many subtle connotations that cannot be exactly expressed by a counterpart English word, is true for Spanish in relation to English and then some (that some is the many more words you have in English). I think English is more complex than Spanish and we can argue back and forth about that.
Sorry, but you're making my point for me. A language may be more or less "sophisticated" than another for different values of "sophisticated." I think Rubén Darío reads better in Spanish than English.
Here you're simply wrong. You can't do Algebra if you don't know Arithmetic. Classical music is more sophisticated that Baroque music or Salvadorean Folk Music.
Of course you can't do algebra without knowing arithmetic. So what? The point is that a tool/language/you name it can be considered sophisticated if it does well the job it was meant to do. Would you use a scalpel instead of a screwdriver to assemble a table, simply because you think surgery is some kind of higher-order occupation than carpentry (or do I mean cabinetry?)?
And by what measure do you say that classical music is more sophisticated than baroque music or Salvadorean folk music? First, in the case of baroque you're contradicting your own "complicated equals sophisticated" rule. I would argue that Bach is vastly more complicated and complex than Beethoven - more layering, more modulation, inversion and variation of themes.
I'm baffled about what to say to you about folk music. If you cannot appreciate the layering of experience, tradition, and the personal innovation of the individual performer that goes into folk music, there's no talking to you on the subject.
And I don't consider it condescending, elitist and discriminatory. So what if a language is more sophisticated than the next? So what if the US Basketball team is better than the Salvadoran team? So what if the Mexican culture is richer than our Salvadorean?
I'm well aware that you don't consider it condescending, elitist or discriminatory. The fact remains that at least three people have told you that it is.
In my opinion, your remark about Mexican culture and Salvadorean culture shows exactly where your confusion lies. There is no reasonable measure by which to say that Mexican or Salvadorean culture is "richer." A culture reflects and expresses the history and experiences of the people who live in it. That's it. One culture will be different than another because the experiences of the people who form the culture are different than the other people's experiences. That doesn't make one "richer" or "more sophisticated" than another.
Do you think Shakespeare's plays are more "sophisticated" than Hopi kachina ceremonies, simply because one was written down on purpose, and the other has grown out of the centuries of experience of the people who perform the ceremonies? I would say each has its own sophistication and expressiveness, and each does better what it was intended to do.
I think your basketball team analogy is flawed. A sporting event is quantitatively measured - points are scored, distances are jumped or run, etc. Even the more artistic endeavors such as gymnastics or figure skating involve scoring - you may not agree with how points are assessed by any one judge but points
are assessed. At the end you add it up and the most points (or in the case of golf, the least points) or the highest jump or the quickest time wins. There's no way to "score" a culture or poem or musical composition (and I don't want to hear the inevitable puns about musical scores either.) Finally, nationalistic fervor during the Olympics notwithstanding (I admit to some personal failings in that area), it would be silly to argue that one country's culture was "richer" than another's because one country's skaters raced faster or performed more triple axels than the other's.
And you would be wrong on all three. And I will give one more reason why you are wrong. You have to consider intent. This remark was not intented to be condescending, elitist and discriminatory and they were not condescending, elitist and discriminatory. The important "intent" to consider is the ad hominem within.
I accept that you didn't mean to be condescending, elitist or discriminatory. That doesn't change the fact that your statement read exactly that way.
I have some of the same problem myself with thinking people shouldn't be hurt or angered or irritated with what I say because I didn't mean it that way. Let me give you an example - when I was a kid, one of my cousins received a Timex watch from her parents for her birthday. It was a pretty watch and she was very proud of it. I (for some reason I don't remember now) made the remark that it was a nice watch, but Timex watches weren't very expensive. I meant it as a factual statement that they simply didn't cost much money, but she took it as a criticism of her watch and her parents, and her feelings were hurt. My intent didn't keep her from thinking I was saying her parents were cheapskates and her watch a crummy gift.
The fact remains that the words you used carried the connotation that, were the Pirahā better educated or more civilized or more cultured or more sophisticated, they would agree with
you.
They'll come to theism when they get a bit of education and learn some Western values? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I infer from this that you feel they are only unbelievers because they haven't received the 'Good News'.
