[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 11:05 AM 12/7/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > >Isn't it fairly uncontroversial that what speakers actually say in > > > >their sentences is quite heavily determined by what things the > > > >language makes easy to say and what things the language makes hard? > > > > > > If I understand the anti-Whorfians (Chomskyists, in general), then it > > would > > > be controversial for them > > > >I doubt it. Antiwhorfianism is normally a rejection of the idea that > >language determines or constrains how we think, not what we say > > The concept that what we say is unrelated to what we think (or how we think > for that matter) seems mind-bogglingly wrong, which is probably why SWH is > accepted by assumption by most people who presume that language structure > determines what we say I don't mean this as cattiness, but "the concept that what we say is unrelated to what we think (or how we think for that matter)" is not implicit in what I said and is not something I can imagine anybody entertaining. A prime problem of whorfian discussions in linguistics is exemplified here: vagueness about what a pro-whorfian believes, and strawman versions of antiwhorfian positions. I have not come across anybody who believes that language structure determines everything we say, or anybody who believes that language structure determines nothing we say. So it can't be true that "SWH is accepted by assumption by most people who presume that language structure determines what we say". > >Also, the idea that (in possibly trivial ways) language enables > >certain thoughts is not very controversial > > The question Loglan/Lojban tries to resolve is whether language > restrictions LIMIT certain thoughts (makes them more difficult if not > unthinkable) This has the virtue of being clear and conceivably testable if some methodology could be found. And thankfully it is the interesting and nontrivial version of whorfianism. That said, the Loglan chapter by JCB and the two documents compiled by you don't shed much light on how Lojban will try to resolve the question. Furthermore, I get the impression that our local 'SWists', i.e. xod, is more interested in how Lojban might broaden mental horizons, not narrow them... --And.