Hey, another spin of worldbuilding/fantasy linguistics/speculative anthropology:
What about a people whose language doesn't have a distinction between verbs, nouns or adjectives?
A language where the same sentence can be translated to both "I am tall" and "I am being tall" as an action one is currently engaged in. And also roles and duties, how does a person think when their first language makes no distinction between the statements "I am dancing" and "I am a dancer"?
Considering the way in which language shapes one's thoughts, I think such a people would view one's actions and identity in a very different light. When everything that you are is things that you do, and everything that you are doing is who you are, status and identity would simultaneously be far more fluid and constantly adapting, and also far more solidly bound to the marrow of one's bones.
When you can't say "I led them there", without saying "I became a leader [who took them there]", you cannot admit that you did something, without admitting that you are capable of taking up the task. When you can't say "I lied" without saying "I made myself a liar", you cannot separate your actions from who you truly are, or were at the moment.
What you are and who you are would be inseparable of what you do, but what you are doing right now takes predesence over whatever you have been and chosen to do before. I have a feeling this would be an honour culture, maybe nomads, where one's status isn't dictated by birth but by one's own merit and actions - to become a leader, one must lead, and once a chieftain fails or neglects their duty, their status as one is gone in a blink.
Without a difference between being something, and acting as something, one can't claim possession to either an object nor a title without taking responsibility of it. One might father a child, but can a man who consistently fails to protect his children call himself a father?
I kind of feel like these people would find problems whenever visiting cities of people who see identity and property differently. Not only is the idea of someone owning a house, horse or a property that they aren't currently using and personally tending to, but also the idea that other peoples' mistreated or neglected children aren't orphans free for grabs.
Adoption - from within the group or of an outsider child - wouldn't be any deal to them, personally, and they are free to leave if they choose to. There is no separate distinction between "I live among the tribe and respect their ways and traditions" and "I am a member of the tribe."
Who you are is how you act, and how you act is who you are.
Reblog to create a language that forces deeper sense of self, encourages moral action, and ownership of your choices
