Print

Print


There's not much to debunk.  The original report that started the myth
only listed *four* distinct roots for snow (and didn't identify the
specific language beyond "Eskimo"), and compared them to a set of
unrelated English words for waterways: river, brook, stream, lake,
etc.  In short, it was mentioned as an unremarkable linguistic
happenstance, not a deep cultural marker. That last aspect was mostly
Whorf's fault. Later writers not only read more significance into the
supposedly greater number of roots, but also amplified the number to
ridiculous proportions over time (one recent article cited 100!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

Of course, if you count any agglutinative combination a "word", then
there is obviously an infinite number of "words for snow" in any
polysynthetic language that has the concept at all, but I don't think
that's what anyone who makes the claim is talking about.

In any case, it's hardly a competition to see whose language has the
most words for snow.  Although maybe we could start one of those... :)
-- 
Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>