Re: THEORY: Conlanging as reverse Sapir-Whorf?

[ Don't know if you guys have read this due
to the server problems, so I'm resending it.
Sorry if you have to read this uninteresting
mail once again. ;) ]

Patrick Dunn wrote:

> What makes me wonder is this: what "ways of thinking" are there?  This
> assertion assumes that there are a set of "ways of thinking" that =
parallel
> the ways of communicating.  If so, what are they?  For example, =
Hatasoe is
> head-marking and has stative verbs insted of adjectives.  What does =
that
> make it?  What does that make *me*?
I think that the way I think affects the way I use
my natlang and possibly that the way my natlang works
affects the way I think (but the way my natlang works
is rather just a consequence of the culture I live in).

Is there anyone out there that actually has made up a conlang
because they felt that they aren't happy with the way their
natlang works? (except perhaps loglangs.)

Myself, I just take things I consider cool from
other langs and incorporate them into Rinya. Rinya is OVS,
does that mean that I don't like that Swedish almost always
put an agent/experiencer or an adverbial phrase as topic?
Does it mean that I tend to focus on the patient or the
theme rather than on myself (since 1p is often the subject)?
I think not, I just want Rinya to be slightly different
from most other langs. Though I guess that last sentence
says something about my conlanging (and myself :).
And I do in fact add things to Rinya that I think
is missing in Swedish and English, e.g. inclusive and
exclusive forms and dual forms of the pronouns.

/ Daniel