From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 05 10:51:15 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYkdv-0000ZM-8a for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:15 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYkdq-0000YQ-Gq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:15 -0700 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so238179vws.25 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6sFETx90hoGznCmIB/gfiygq5W9WiEji5lfOjAxRtOw=; b=ErQaL5pXAtObklTGO/PVDWx2RJNFmny0fivNqz0aWB+fQhxl5DsZJj/4+F5PJZIzsu lznlcoaazY808v2xkK4fZrMR3LApYmKDPbrKvcMqjeK/mrAeRYHrg+BK1mDBS1E5SFD+ SQAZFx7sFF2LEJT8kbfoxPtId4Zp1wkaNHhqg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Z4VnbXxxjyuGChZDdCrA6LZ0Scn/RDYcIj2Q32SthHObRESBQLMXmzW0RzSXGt6G43 618zNhwkf77NCR0Fh3qoZVwX6ABHXA3S1oIk1q9OadsrtyFCpZ5Ba+o68hTri/rt2sRJ 0W2YAwvAoLCJLz+y7hdRhqP7tiwFZA3vXZsL4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.75.70 with SMTP id x6mr8662634vcj.87.1249494664289; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <162864.32099.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <987611.38248.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5715b9300908050714m209051e9ud8ab75e7b236cc85@mail.gmail.com> <500926.81477.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5715b9300908050935w48164fc4oe9bbea8a3f91c6f5@mail.gmail.com> <162864.32099.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:51:04 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300908051051x46bd00b9p5ad69453b83d122f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6475cfc9d21f5047068a5b8 X-archive-position: 15911 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0016e6475cfc9d21f5047068a5b8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow, I thought SWH was more general than that. Is there a hypothesis that is more general than "verbs make you think verby and nouns make you think nouny"? I've read a few different articles that talk about people who speak languages with certain fundamental differences having fundamentally different ways of thinking about certain things. I always assumed that they were SWH like, but evidently they were not. For instance, I was under the impression that things like: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080714111940.htm were SWH meets memory. Also it's disappointing to hear that Whorf was so.... lingui-centric? But I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath-water. It seems like the root idea is a good one even if you believe that the original author of the idea had his various problems. mu'o mi'e pafcribe On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:38 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > The hypothesis was never formulated in more than casual terms by the > "originators." About as clear as it gets (not actually in either of them) > is that grammatical categories of a language affect the native ontology of > the speakers: if there are nouns, adjectives and verbs, the speakers see the > world as composed of isolated things that have properties and do events; if > the only major category is verbs, then the speaker sees the world as as a > holistic process, with temporary -- but constantly changing -- eddies. And > so on (though it is not clear what is associated with other languages). To > make matters somewhat worse, Whorf at least thought he knew how the world > really was and therefore implicitly gave added values to those languages > (Hopi, Menominee, i.e., the one he had studied) which gave their speakers > the right view (the outer edges of Mahayana -- which is, of course > originally set forth in a language with verbs, nouns and adjectives, > whatever the native grammarians may say). > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:35:21 AM > *Subject:* [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf > > I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that the hypothesis is > defined to vaguely to make realistic/specific tests? > > - Luke Bergen > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > >> Yes, it sorta does in this case, since the claimed effects and claimed >> causes seem to be very familiar and open to examination and tinkering. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Luke Bergen >> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:14:25 AM >> *Subject:* [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf >> >> How does failing to come up with a testable hypothesis make something a >> crock? It just means we've failed to test it so far. There are a lot of >> things in the universe that we don't know how to test yet, that doesn't >> make them "a crock" does it? >> >> - Luke Bergen >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM, John E Clifford wrote: >> >>> The negative results of sixty years (more or less, probably more) of >>> trying to formulate a testable hypothesis that is even vaguely related to >>> what Ed and Ben said. The best of these (possibly testable) were either >>> trivially true (the vocab cases) or blatantly false (the strong metaphysical >>> determination cases), and only the latter looked much like what the two >>> actually said. Of the rest, the untestable ones (though it didn't stop >>> people from claiming to try) yielded no significant results (of course) and >>> the testable ones had nought to do with the professor and the claims >>> adjuster (and the results were still generally negative). >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" >>> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:30:22 PM >>> *Subject:* [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf >>> >>> In a message dated 8/3/2009 15:39:24 Eastern Daylight Time, >>> kali9putra@yahoo.com writes: >>> >>> >>> SWH is about deep level grammatical categories and ontology, not about >>> vocabulary tricks. (It is still a crock, of course, but at least it is an >>> interesting crock). >>> >>> >>> >>> What evidence do you have that it's a crock? >>> >>> stevo >>> >>> >> >> > > --0016e6475cfc9d21f5047068a5b8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wow, I thought SWH was more general than that.=A0 Is there a hypothesis tha= t is more general than "verbs make you think verby and nouns make you = think nouny"?=A0 I've read a few different articles that talk abou= t people who speak languages with certain fundamental differences having fu= ndamentally different ways of thinking about certain things.=A0 I always as= sumed that they were SWH like, but evidently they were not.=A0 For instance= , I was under the impression that things like: http://www.sciencedaily.com/r= eleases/2008/07/080714111940.htm were SWH meets memory.

Also it's disappointing to hear that Whorf was so.... lingui-centri= c?=A0 But I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath-water.=A0 It = seems like the root idea is a good one even if you believe that the origina= l author of the idea had his various problems.

mu'o mi'e pafcribe


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:38 PM, John E C= lifford <kali9= putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
The hypothesis was never formulated in more than casua= l terms by the "originators."=A0 About as clear as it gets (not a= ctually in either of them) is that grammatical categories of a language aff= ect the native ontology of the speakers: if there are nouns, adjectives and= verbs, the speakers see the world as composed of isolated things that have= properties and do events; if the only major category is verbs, then the sp= eaker sees the world as as a holistic process, with temporary -- but consta= ntly changing -- eddies.=A0 And so on (though it is not clear what is assoc= iated with other languages).=A0 To make matters somewhat worse, Whorf at le= ast thought he knew how the world really was and therefore implicitly gave added values to those languages (Hopi, Menominee, i.e., the one he had stu= died) which gave their speakers the right view (the outer edges of Mahayana= -- which is, of course originally set forth in a language with verbs, noun= s and adjectives, whatever the native grammarians may say).
<= b>From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com= >
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
<= b>Sent: Wednesday, August 5, = 2009 11:35:21 AM

Subject: [lojban] Re: = Experiments in Sapir Whorf

I'm not sure I follow you here.=A0 Are you saying that the hypothesis i= s defined to vaguely to make realistic/specific tests?
- Luke Bergen


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM, John E = Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, it sorta does in this case, since the claimed effect= s and claimed causes seem to be very familiar and open to examination and t= inkering.

<= b>From: Luke Bergen <luke= abergen@gmail.com>Sent: = Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:14:25 AM

Subject: [lojban] Re: = Experiments in Sapir Whorf

How does failing to come up with a testable hypothesis make something a cro= ck?=A0 It just means we've failed to test it so far.=A0 There are a lot= of things in the universe that we don't know how to test yet,=A0 that = doesn't make them "a crock" does it?

- Luke Bergen


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM, John E C= lifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
The negative results of sixty years (more or less, probab= ly more) of trying to formulate a testable hypothesis that is even vaguely = related to what Ed and Ben said.=A0 The best of these (possibly testable) w= ere either trivially true (the vocab cases) or blatantly false (the strong = metaphysical determination cases), and only the latter looked much like wha= t the two actually said. Of the rest, the untestable ones (though it didn&#= 39;t stop people from claiming to try) yielded no significant results (of c= ourse) and the testable ones had nought to do with the professor and the cl= aims adjuster (and the results were still generally negative).

<= b>From: "Morphem= eAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>Sent: = Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:30:22 PM

Subject: [lojban] Re: = Experiments in Sapir Whorf

In a message dated 8/3/2009= 15:39:24 Eastern Daylight Time, kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:


SWH is about deep level grammatical categories and ontology, not a= bout vocabulary tricks. =A0(It is still a crock, of course, but at least it= is an interesting crock).


What evidence do you have that it's a crock?

stevo






--0016e6475cfc9d21f5047068a5b8-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.