The thing that really gets me about monolinguals/people uninterested in linguistics is the strange need to label languages as objectively/inherently difficult.
Any linguistic feature that may seem, at the surface level, to be a challenge, is often that much of a challenge to not have. When learners complain that German/Russian/Greek cases are superfluously complicated, they seem to forget that for those who speak using cases natively, it seems like such a limitation to not have them. Suddenly the precision of who is doing what to whom is murky, and word order is now strictly confined to the chains of SVO.
Many are quick to label the tones of east Asian languages as a nonsensical or a confusing system. For those who use tones natively, it would seem absurd not to have them. To avoid them, many languages are required to make use of an extremely vast phonology, and words become quite lengthy to compensate for this diversity. Imagine having this skill for intonation and having to power it down until the occasional tone used for a question arises.
People are quick to label the verbs of romance languages as pesky and convoluted. It is these seemingly daunting conjugations that allow listeners to know precise specifics about who is doing what, in addition to the time and manner, all in a single word. For speakers of other languages, this would require additional mentioning of subject pronouns, grammatical particles, and time/location words, in order to achieve the same clarity.
In the end, it is the absence of features that can be just as irksome, complicated, or intimidating. Language has been created for humans by humans.
If there were a language so inherently difficult that a native speaker couldn’t easily tackle it before puberty, it would probably be quickly replaced, as soon as a language more suitable for humans came into play.
The takeaway here is that these man-made tools are just that. The only meaningful comparison to judge innate difficultly is a comparison to one’s native tongue. Hard for you? Perhaps. So intrinsically difficult that a native-speaking toddler still couldn’t babble in it? Doubtful.
It started insidiously. But now, Peter Parker is sure he has a burglar problem. It’s not that someone broke in and searched his home and stole his appliances and cash, far from it. What has him baffled is that the burglar seems to enjoy breaking in to… do the dishes, stock his fridge and even get him a new mattress and fix his place?! Or: in which Spidey is poor and Deadpool is just trying to help while avoiding awkward situations like how he figured his identity and Spidey refusing his help.
one says “Do you believe in psychology?” “Do you believe in biology?” “Do you
believe in metaphysics?” “Do you believe in zoology?” “Do you believe in
engineering?” “Do you believe in sociology?”
is a science (a social science, or a pseudo science), and it’s not something that requires
“belief.“ It’s not a creedal religion.
requires a belief in the one true God; Vaishnava requires you to believe Vishnu
is the one true God, and all others are various reincarnations of him. Astrology has no deities, no moral codes. There’s no rules of conduct, nothing (or no one) we worship. We do not lay claims to knowing the future or past.
Astrology is a set of data. Astrology is a collection of patterns studied vigorously to make predictions about future and past circumstances, and what those may indicate - much like meteorology.
is a “science”, a tool, that’s "unverified’ because man lack the ability at
this current point in scientific and technological development, in addition to
other factors. Perhaps someday this may change; just as Psychology was
originally considered a load of horse crap. Once man learned how the brain
worked, how hormones and bodily chemicals affect us, studied how our
environments mold us, and conducted many other studies - all of which happened
quite recently - it became valid.
believe Astrology will follow down a similar path, with similar results. But
for now, let’s step away from the notion that Astrology is about believing in
it; it’s about use.
you find Astrology useful, or you don’t.
Personally, I find it extremely useful. It’s
easier for me to say “I have a Moon in Pisces.” than to say “I like time to be
alone every now and then. I need to retreat from the world to recharge my
batteries. I come back out after a while, but I need isolation.”
is our language. It’s how we say a lot with only a few words, it’s how we express
vast ideas and concepts in an extremely brief sentence. It’s a tool for us to
understand and communicate, and hope others understand too.
Astrology is a tool to gain insight into people that we normally wouldn’t be able