Print

Print


Jörg Rhiemeier wrote at 2005-05-14 18:24:14 (+0200)
 > Hallo!
 >
 > On Sat, 14 May 2005 05:12:39 -0400,
 > "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 >
 > > On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:22:41 -0400, Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 > >
 > > >On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:00:36 -0400, Remi Villatel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 > > >
 > > > > I've always believed that a language influences your
 > > > > tought. Another writing system, in particular if it's as
 > > > > special as a 2dWS would be much like an another
 > > > > language. Sapir-Worf and so on...
 > > >
 > > >Sapir-Worf could not possibly be true. If it were, we'd still be
 > > >banging rocks together, if that.
 >
 > I think there is so much evidence against the "Sapir-Whorf"
 > hypothesis (which is actually Whorf's, not Sapir's), and so little
 > in favour of it, that it can be considered disproven (and most
 > linguists do so).

In my view, the term "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" doesn't, as generally
used, mean anything specific enough to be "proven" or "disproven".



(Neither Whorf nor Sapir explicitly set out a "hypothesis", but Sapir
certainly held views in accordance with this general idea, e.g.

| Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in
| the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very
| much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the
| medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to
| imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of
| language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving
| specific problems of communication or reflection.

  -- "The Status of Linguistics as a Science", Edward Sapir, 1929 )