Causal Why vs Teleological Why

English sucks as a “why” language

Asked ChatGPT a question that has always bugged me about English as well as all the Indian languages I know. Sharing the one-shot answer with no further processing. This kinda explains why German is a better language for philosophy than English. Possibly Russian too.

---

Are there any languages in which the causal why and teleological why are distinguished with different words?

Yes — several languages split the English “why” into distinct forms, and some of these splits map cleanly onto causal vs. teleological motivations. The distinctions fall into three broad patterns.

---

Sloptraptions is an AI-assisted opt-in section of the Contraptions Newsletter. If you only want my hand-crafted writing, you can unsubscribe from this section.

---

Explicit causal vs. purposive split (closest to your question)

German

• Warum — “why” in the causal/explanatory sense (“Why did it rain?”).

• Wozu / wofür — “for what purpose,” teleological (“Why did you do that?” → “For what end?”).

Native speakers often feel a pragmatic difference: Warum asks for antecedent causes; wozu/ wofür asks for intended goals.

Russian

• Почему — causal/explanatory (“because what?” → cause).

• Зачем — purposive/teleological (“for what purpose?”).

The distinction is robust: зачем ты это сделал? means “what was your purpose?”, not “what caused you to do it?”

Finnish

• Miksi — causal why.

• Mitä varten / minkä takia — purposive why (“for what purpose?”).
  These are quite distinct in use, with mitä varten strongly oriented toward intended goals.

Polish

• Dlaczego — causal.

• Po co — teleological (“for what end?”).

Again, a stable and intuitive split.

Languages that distinguish cause, motive, and purpose with separate interrogatives

These systems are even richer than the English single “why.”

Classical Greek

• Διατί / διὰ τί — causal (“because of what?”).

• ἵνα τί / ὅπως / ἵνα — purpose (“in order that / for what end?”).

Greek grammaticalizes purposive clauses (ἵνα + subjunctive) distinctly from causal ones (διότι, ὅτι). Even the interrogatives track these domains.

Latin

While cur covers both in many contexts, Latin can differentiate via:

• cur / quare — causal why.

• quam ob rem — motive (“on account of what?”).

• quo (in purpose clauses) — “to what end / whither (figuratively).”

Latin’s system mixes spatial metaphors, but the teleological distinction is marked in subordinate clause morphology (ut = purpose; quod/quia = cause).

Languages where morphology forces the speaker to pick cause vs. purpose

Japanese

There is one interrogative for “why,” but productive distinctions in the answer and sentence structure require specifying the kind of explanation:

• なぜ (naze) — general “why,” often formal, usually causal.

• どうして (dōshite) — more colloquial, can imply motive or circumstance.

• 何のために (nan no tame ni) — explicitly teleological (“for the sake of what?”).

The last form is unambiguously purposive.

Korean

Similar stratification:

• 왜 (wae) — general why (often causal).

• 어째서 (eojjaeseo) — reason/explanation.

• 무엇 때문에 (mueot ttaemune) — causal (“because of what”).

• 무엇을 위해서 (mueoseul wihaeseo) — teleological (“for what purpose”).

Some non-Indo-European systems that separate cause and purpose

Turkish

• Interrogative neden (“from what?”) is causal;

• Interrogative niçin / ne için (“for what?”) targets purpose.

Mandarin Chinese

The interrogative 为什么 (wèishénme) covers both, but:

• 因为… (yīnwèi) = because → cause

• 为了… (wèile) = in order to → purpose

  Speakers often use 为了什么? (wèile shénme?) to force teleology.

Not as lexically hard-coded as Slavic or Germanic, but the distinction exists.

Bottom line

Yes — German, Russian, Polish, Finnish, Turkish, and several others make a clear lexical split between causal and teleological “why.” Greek and Latin grammarize the distinction even more strongly. Japanese, Korean, and Chinese do it through compositional phrases that force the speaker to specify cause or purpose.

If you want a single clean example where the split is fully lexicalized, Russian (почему vs. зачем) and Polish (dlaczego vs. po co) are the closest to a categorical causal vs. teleological “why.”