[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:12:07AM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 08:33 PM 6/1/03 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
[...]
> > > > What might be true is that people tend to get interested in Lojban
> > > > either because they're interested in whorfianism or because they're
> > > > interested in formalism
> > >
> > > Yeah, but we all know whorfianism (not xod's religion; I mean the
> > > Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) is bunk. I think Lojbanists should drop
> > > all this "testing the sapir-whorf hypothesis" crap, or at least
> > > footnote it with "A largely untenable, racist viewpoint, which is
> > > more or less demonstratably false"
> >
> >I have of course said similar things (albeit a little less vehemently).
> >But the founding intent of Lojban was to complete the Loglan project,
> >and the original purpose of the Loglan project was ostensibly to test
> >SW. So you're saying that Lojban should alter its avowed goals --
> >that is, change what it says its goals are.
>
> If SWH were demonstrably false, there would be no issue. In point of fact,
> while I haven't read recent developments, Kempton and Kay had pretty much
> demonstrated that it was TRUE several years ago, at least within the domain
> of color words and conception.
Can you think about things which take you more than one word to
describe, even though other languages have a single word for it?
Yes. Ok then.
> I certainly don't think it is either "demonstrably false" or "racist" in
> the form which JCB and I characterized it.
[...]
It is racist.
Them there savages can't not thunk it like us white folk. They
ain't even got no word for 'compassion', I tell ye.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binjDK0zkIlMw.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped