Paul Bennett wrote:
> I started thinking about Sapir-Whorf (we dont need to discuss the =
valididty of
> it -- we've only recently been through that game -- it's just a handy =
label for
> a phenomenon that exists, to a greater or lesser extent, within =
various scopes).
> I've come to the theory that conlanging express the exact reverse of =
this
> theory; i.e. "The way one thinks effects the type of conlang one =
produces".
> There's something bigger and deeper lurking there, but I'm only =
peripherally
> aware of it and certainly lack the terminology to describe it =
adequately.
>
> Anyone care to jump in and help describe/refine/refute this?
Interesting question.
Not being that good at the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but isn't
that kind of the 'chicken and egg' argument? The language
one uses effects the way you think, but doesn't that lead to
the conclusion that the way you think effect the way you
speak as well? What came first, so to say?
/ Daniel