An assessment of the Unicode standard

[Lie Ryan]

r wrote:
> On Sep 15, 4:12 am, Hendrik van Rooyen <hend... at microcorp.co.za>
> wrote:
> (snip)
> 
>> When a language lacks a word for a concept like "window", then (I
>> believe  :-) ), it kind of puts a crimp in the style of thinking that a
>> person will do, growing up with only that language.
> 
> Are you telling us people using a language that does not have a word
> for window somehow cannot comprehend what a window is, are you mad
> man?  Words are simply text attributes attached to objects. the text
> attribute doesn't change the object in any way. just think of is
> __repr__
> 

Without an outsider (read: someone who used a different language) who 
pointed out the idea of window; it is impossible for that person to 
think about the concept of window except in the cases of independent 
reinvention. This is because people are naturally lazy to think about 
difficult concepts; "an opening on a plane" is much more difficult to 
comprehend and express compared to "window". Thus people either have to 
coin a new word for the complex concept or they won't be able to develop 
the concept since they don't benefit from the abstraction that the new 
word gives (think black-box thinking).

I would say "a word" is like a new class. A class encapsulates a 
difficult concept into a much simpler wrapper so we don't have to think 
about how it is implementated. New concepts and ideas will be developed 
on top of these classes. Without the abstraction, we would have to use 
much elaboration to express the more complex concept; and we will fail 
to form conclusion earlier.

And this brings out the point: "though it is possible for any language 
to illustrate any concept; the concept will require much less brain 
cycle to comprehend in a fuller and richer language due to the wider 
availability of abstractions".

"Yes it is possible" "But no, it is not feasible for any mere to think about