[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 11:40 PM 12/7/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > >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 > > If language structure determines or constrains what we say, and if what we > say is closely related to what we think, then language determines or > constrains what we think If true, then SWH is already proven true. > > > >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 > > Which two? I can't remember the titles, but one was a series of articles from JL, and one was a write-up of a very early mailing list discussion, perhaps from sci.lang. --And.