From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 05 11:53:50 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYlcT-0006Gq-TO for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:53:50 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYlcP-0006Gb-Rh for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:53:49 -0700 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so280127vws.25 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:53:39 -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=UvLk7AK1u1AV5C5MQ3DUVngb5228RqkSgxyLQWv3TrY=; b=PvNBR6T6M4rlRGKmhtlJz1V23atczK8oxJsUmSbOqMVEI5iHH3wtgNUtzHOHIOPvrh SlwnD30kykUWCFJYAixDxUYQ7OF34SZYkVMgUPYx/UWtLCf6gfasUwHt/Bxm7e1Jbv5M S45CSDuBpqxL6zL3qfbgp2mxbvm7UlVStRlYw= 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=NSY0VPw3sYoaONv8ug6YJP9q6i/zQd1AMTgLRzECrCnBrZ/DjJ+nJGcYpy4XYowfZ2 pokuyGuFHpjXpEYOYZAla0zU/ZaPWxc7ErDscd+EIQARmgE0k+Z1W0I8Jw4FwUg7LgwR 7BMGFD5WjF0CRy51+iVvIoumDWft04D9yCv00= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.87.8 with SMTP id u8mr8776667vcl.103.1249498419463; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:53:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <238087.29513.qm@web81301.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> <5715b9300908051051x46bd00b9p5ad69453b83d122f@mail.gmail.com> <238087.29513.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:53:39 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300908051153n66567fafyb8fe10bc2cfa10a7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64ec9427086440470698560 X-archive-position: 15920 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 --0016e64ec9427086440470698560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit heh, kind of reminds me of soc 101 and the "sociological paradox" that people create/define society but society drives human behavior. Maybe language is the same. Language evolves according to our perception but then we see things in terms of language. A cycle of causality? On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > There ae more general claims, but they tend to wander off into > untestability rather quickly. Almost all of them still remain somewhat > concrete, that is they talk about languages different in some particular > aspect (not just noun v verb) and some particular aspect of "the way we look > at things." Of course, some of the aspects get a little untestable > themselves (melodic languages lead to artistic people, to not quite invent a > horrible example). The root idea of all this is that language affects > culture, which seems likely to be true though hard to prove. Unfortunately, > it is also clearly the case that culture affects language, so covariation > doesn't show which way the affect goes (or whether there is a tertium that > governs both) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 5, 2009 12:51:04 PM > > *Subject:* [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf > > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > --0016e64ec9427086440470698560 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable heh, kind of reminds me of soc 101 and the "sociological paradox"= that people create/define society but society drives human behavior.=A0 Ma= ybe language is the same.=A0 Language evolves according to our perception b= ut then we see things in terms of language.=A0 A cycle of causality?


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, John E C= lifford <kali9= putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
There ae more general claims, but they tend to wander off= into untestability rather quickly.=A0 Almost all of them still remain some= what concrete, that is they talk about languages different in some particul= ar aspect (not just noun v verb) and some particular aspect of "the wa= y we look at things."=A0 Of course, some of the aspects get a little u= ntestable themselves (melodic languages lead to artistic people, to not qui= te invent a horrible example).=A0 The root idea of all this is that languag= e affects culture, which seems likely to be true though hard to prove.=A0 U= nfortunately, it is also clearly the case that culture affects language, so= covariation doesn't show which way the affect goes (or whether there i= s a tertium that governs both)

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.co= m>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org=
Sent: Wednesday, Aug= ust 5, 2009 12:51:04 PM

Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sap= ir Whorf

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/releases/2008/07/080714111940.htm were SWH meets memor= y.

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 <kali9putra@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).
Sent: Wedn= esday, 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








--0016e64ec9427086440470698560-- 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.