Vlürch wrote: ↑
30 May 2020 18:59
Salmoneus wrote: ↑
28 May 2020 20:24
And as for historical wrongdoing by others - sure, the word 'shame' is found now and then, but actually no, I don't think it's talked about much. I think both sides of the debate are more likely to use concepts like guilt, regret and debt, rather than shame. Indeed, the idea of feeling shame over the actions of other people is strange to me - I can easily be embarassed by a parent's actions, for example, but I don't think I could be ashamed of them. I agree, of course, that shame for the actions of others is a prototypical element of the shame concept... but that just means, I think, that my instinctive shame concept is, like most people's, rather limited and largely in the process of merging with guilt.
It's strange, yeah, but how can you control your feelings like that?
Could you please cut it out with the 'everyone but me is a heartless monster' business, please?
First, we're talking whether a feeling should be called 'shame' or not. That's nothing to do with the strength of the feeling or the moral worth of the person feeling it.
[to be clear: yes, this is a case where traditional shame can be felt; the fact that it's a case where I feel uneasy using my colloquial 'shame' for something that is traditionally a paradigm case of shame only further suggests that my colloquial or instinctive sense of 'shame' is no longer really coherently distinguished from other negative feelings]
Second, don't assume that everyone is you. I don't feel particularly ashamed OR guilty about the misdeeds of the British Empire - that doesn't mean I DO feel shame and then retrospectively 'control' that feeling.
I could just as easily ask you: "how are you able to fabricate this emotion?" or "how are you able to pretend to feel shame over this?" or just "how can you make yourself feel this shame?", as though you really felt nothing. One is as invalid (and insulting) as the other.
On the substantive point, though: I don't feel shame over the actions of other British people because I'm not a nationalist. I do not particularly identify with my 'nation', so the fact that some evildoer is said to have been of the same 'nation' as me does not much bother me. Not only did they live centuries ago in most cases (so we are not even products of the same millieu), but they weren't related to me, and very few of them came from any place I know or have any association with. My ancestors had almost as little say in the running of the Empire as anyone in the colonies. So why on earth should my feeling depend on what they did, just because some racist or fascist would like to insist that we're all part of the same great national socialist spirit or whatever likewise bollocks?
I don't feel shame about what "Britain" has done because I don't base my identity on obedience to The Nation.
I do, however, recognise that as someone living in Britain today I have benefitted from the economic and cultural strength of the nation, and that some significant (though incalculable) part of that strength is the result of dishonourable actions in the past. To the extent that I benefit from those actions, I do think I am in some sort of debt. I do think, for example, that Britain's colonial past has created a special obligation toward the people of its former colonies, both in geopolitical concern and in immigration allowances.
But I don't feel any particular guilt or shame or mark indelible of sin regarding this.
Salmoneus wrote: ↑
28 May 2020 20:24
Oh, well, if you have italics on your side, I can't see how I can rebut that!
C'mon, you know I use italics without any implications of smugness or anything.
C'mon, you know that "it just is!" is not a good argument, regardless of typographical flourishes.
Just in my experience I'm not the only Finn who feels ashamed of our country's past, and I assumed everyone who acknowledges that there's some fucked shit in Finland's history would feel like it's a burden on them personally even if the feeling isn't one of collective guilt per se; that's why I thought it's shame, but maybe it's not. Maybe I'm also wrong and only a minority feel anything because of it, in that case I'm even more ashamed of being Finnish than I already am. Ultimately it'd be best if the entire concept of shame ceased to exist, but I can't be optimistic about that because I can't shake it myself with things like personal issues and politics even though I can mostly shake it with things considered shameful for religious reasons.
I don't understand your position. You simultaneously say it would be better if Finns did not feel shame over their past, and that you'd be ashamed of them not feeling shame over their past. If it's a good thing, why are you ashamed of it?
I never meant to imply specificity
OK. For future reference, then, it's maybe misleading to pick a particular word, if you're asking a general, non-specific question - particularly if you pick an unusual and specific word. If I ask "what's the Finnish word for turnip?" and you answer, and then I say "oh, but I meant any sort of foodstuff, not turnips specifically", then you're likely to feel a bit mislead!
Salmoneus wrote: ↑
28 May 2020 20:24
So your real question is "what are the sound-changes from Proto-Uralic to Finnish?", then?
Kind of, but it's not as simple as sound changes individually...
Sound changes collectively are just a collection of individual sound changes. If you know the sound changes, you know how it would have regularly developed (and there's no point asking what irregular developments would have happened - if we knew, they wouldn't be irregular).
and it's not only about this particular etymon, I'd be just as interested in knowing if there was some other word that would've likely filled that concept through semantic shifts.
Certainly, but there's almost no limit to those!
Here's an example: maybe the word for 'shame' could come from "seeing in"?
[Latin in-video > invidia, "envy", and envy is very close to shame. Or how about "flourishing"? Latin invireo > viridus, "green", and English "green" > "envious", and from there to "ashamed"...]
Xonen wrote: ↑
29 May 2020 01:47
Well, I'm not ashamed, and the whole notion strikes me as rather weird. Why should I be ashamed for the actions of a some of the people who lived in this country long before I was even born? It's not like I chose to be born into it or anything. So, this form of shame certainly strikes me as culturally or even ideologically specific.
Obviously we shouldn't
be ashamed, but how is it possible to accept without feeling at least some kind of bad feeling that our country has done some fucked up shit? Even if it's not 100% necessarily shame, since it might be I've completely misunderstood the specific concept my whole life and the word for it isn't shame (anymore?), I mean, there's some kind of bad feeling...
Again, this seems just to come down to nationalism, no? Germany has done some 'fucked up shit' too. So has Japan. Do you feel shame about what the Japanese did in WWII? If not, why not? You were no more or less involved in that than you were in what the Finns of that time did.
every time I post a question here, it ends up turning into an argument about something related to the concept but not the linguistic part of it
I'm sorry I wasn't able to answer the linguistic question. I've no idea what the sound-changes from Proto-Uralic to Finnish were. But I don't think that should prohibit me from having an interesting question about the - frankly more important and more interesting - questions you raised tangentially.
Huh... well, it's used in the reconstructions on Starostin's site as a distinct phoneme, admittedly those are older reconstructions so maybe they're not as close to reality as is understood now.
Isn't Starostin a famous lunatic hack? I mean, he reconstructed Uralic to make it fit into Ural-Altaic, and constructed Ural-Altaic so that it would fit into Nostratic, and Nostratic so that it would fit into Borean - so how much can his reconstructions of Uralic be trusted as a fair representation of the limited facts themselves?
Maybe that can be, I don't know. But I'd be uneasy relying on him as my source.
I do still have to make amends for the period in my life when I was into nationalism, but losing interest in Uralic languages can't be a requirement for that...
I won't even ask about other words in other languages at least for now because it'd only lead to prolonging the argument since I'd inevitably make a mistake in how I word the questions. I'm not sure what I'm feeling right now for having posted that question in the first place if it's not shame, but it's probably not shame if it no longer even exists in the west.
And now you're doing the Eddying thing - trying to guilt-trip people into not disagreeing with you by pretending that we're bullying you so horribly you can't resist and of course you completely agree with us but don't we see how much we're hurting you. Oh but masters, am I really so guilty that I must be forced to give up my native language in this way!?
Nobody's making you give up your language, nobody's making you give up interest in Uralic languages, nobody's telling you to make amends for any period in your life, this is all just a fantasy of persecution.