The idea of a language defining our perception was supposedly disproved by Noam Chomsky’s introduction of the “Universal Grammar”. And yet, this new study opens the very same can of worms again, along the Sapir- Whorf Hypothesis lines.
If Russian speakers could see more shades of blue because the have more words describing it, and Japanese and Spanish speakers struggle recalling agents of accidental events because of the way their respective languages work, maybe our ability to learn and understand semantically significant concepts is also influenced by the medium through which we absorb these concepts – a language in this case?
Maybe there was something to “the golden key” – Latin and Greek Languages, common languages of the European scholars - that kept link to antiquity in the darkness of Middle Ages? Maybe, there is language uniquely suited to learning some specific subject? Domain Specific Languages are relatively common in computer programming; maybe the concept could be applied back to “natural” languages and comprehension?
A word of caution to the tale…
There is a short story by Robert Sheckley - ”The Language of Love” (1957, Notions: Unlimited); in it a young man sets out to learn the almost forgotten Language of Love, developed by the now extinct inhabitants of a distant planet. After maatering the language, he discovers the reason behind the extinction of that alien race – the Language of Love is so precise and complex that learning (and then using it) becomes an endeavor unto itself, impeding communications with uninitiated, and leaving no time for anything else… 