Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (was Re: FLAMEBAIT: Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?)
|From:||Tim May <butsuri@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, May 14, 2005, 17:47|
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote at 2005-05-14 18:24:14 (+0200)
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 05:12:39 -0400,
> "J. 'Mach' Wust" <j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:22:41 -0400, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
> > >On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:00:36 -0400, Remi Villatel <maxilys@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've always believed that a language influences your
> > > > tought. Another writing system, in particular if it's as
> > > > special as a 2dWS would be much like an another
> > > > language. Sapir-Worf and so on...
> > >
> > >Sapir-Worf could not possibly be true. If it were, we'd still be
> > >banging rocks together, if that.
> I think there is so much evidence against the "Sapir-Whorf"
> hypothesis (which is actually Whorf's, not Sapir's), and so little
> in favour of it, that it can be considered disproven (and most
> linguists do so).
In my view, the term "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" doesn't, as generally
used, mean anything specific enough to be "proven" or "disproven".
(Neither Whorf nor Sapir explicitly set out a "hypothesis", but Sapir
certainly held views in accordance with this general idea, e.g.
| Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in
| the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very
| much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the
| medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to
| imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of
| language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving
| specific problems of communication or reflection.
-- "The Status of Linguistics as a Science", Edward Sapir, 1929 )