Re: A question of semantics

Nick Maclaren scripsit:
> I apologise in advance for describing how to suck eggs to
> grandmothers, but I need to explain what I know and what I am
> thinking of.  First, an example of the weak form of the
> Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (which I regard as being proved beyond
> reasonable doubt):
If you are interested in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and artificial
languages, I point you to http://www.lojban.org .

> I subscribed to this mailing list for one main purpose: curiosity
> on whether the designers of artificial languages are interested in
> adding semantic concepts that are not present in existing natural
> languages, and in investigating whether the use of such languages
> changes people's ways of thinking.  Purely out of academic
> interest (a.k.a. a butterfly mind) you understand, but I think that
> Sapir and Whorf (whoever they were) would understand :-)
This is indeed one of the purposes of Lojban.   Lojban can be and has
been discussed here, but it also has its own mailing lists.

--
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
[R]eversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before
Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do
with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among
the orthodox--thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite
undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness.  --T. H. Huxley

Reply