[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 03:43:42AM +1000, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> Jordan:
> > [1] A simple test could be designed for your color fetish: Just
> > show people who speak different languages similar shades of colors
> > and ask them if they can tell the difference between the two. There
> > will be no effect on the results based on what language people
> > speak, if all they are asked to do is say whether two shades are
> > different. The human eye is capable of percieving relatively slight
> > changes in light frequency, and its performance is *not* affected
> > by race, or the language(s) you happen to speak.
>
> http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/46AC/Language3/sld017.htm
>
> (Otherwise known as RTFM; Bob's just brought up this very paper.)
That is so not a paper.... Maybe you gave me the wrong url?
Anyway, it doesn't contain the test I suggest (unless I missed it,
it mainly consisted of nifty diagrams which should probably be
accompanied with someone talking...), which is to show people similar
colors and simply ask if they are different. (*not* to ask for
names of the colors or such things, since that introduces language
biases and we're supposed to be testing how people *think*).
Not only do people's eyes not function differently based on the
language they speak, people simply don't think fundamentally
differently based on language. Language is not even a fundamental
aspect of thinking, despite the arguments people make to support
SW-style things. Have you ever noticed how your internal subvocalization
of a thought follows *after* thoughts you have? I'll be subvocalizing
something long, sometimes, and realize that I already know where
I'm going with it, and so just stfu. This implies that the thought
was not same thing as the internal language, and could've existed
without it. For example, when playing chess, I think hard about
moves but don't subvocalize it at all.
The language you speak may affect some aspects of your thought (in
terms of the conclusions you may reach or other such things), but
only to the extent that your culture and other such things do, which
is of course not what SW claims (or if it is, then SW is trivial
and uninteresting).
Affecting your ability to 'memorize' of a shade of color is not the
same as affecting how a person thinks.
Also, it is worth noting that that slide show leaves out many
*hundreds* of other color names which exist in English. Examples:
tourqoise, chartreuse, maroon, indigo, cornflower blue, magenta,
crimson, lavender, and many many *many* others (I urge you all to
go visit a home depot!). The "paper" you posted mentioned like 5.
Furthermore, anyone with the technical knowhow can use some sort
of mechanical device to measure the color shown with much greater
accuracy than their eye provides, and notate it in a system with
millions of color names (e.g. 24-bit color). This sort of action
is not impeded at all by whether you have other names for certain
colors.
> What consequences this has for Lojban is a matter of debate; like I've
> said, I don't happen to like the SW orientation of Lojban. But the
> specific claim you're making has been refuted for the past 19 years.
I'd love to see some more references on this, if you would supply.
I am under the impression that Sapir-Whorf has been essentially
dead in the arse since Chomsky.
> Chill, Jordan; we need your passion in more constructive pursuits. :-)
Point taken.
--
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:
bin_Rc1pXdpii.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped