From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 24 02:25:58 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MfVoM-0003RI-N3 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:25:58 -0700 Received: from server3.spellings.net ([78.110.163.177]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MfVoF-0003On-CA for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:25:58 -0700 Received: from 79-75-88-129.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([79.75.88.129] helo=Q) by server3.spellings.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MfVnz-00070w-1y; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:25:35 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Colin Wright To: lojban-list@lojban.org, John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:25:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <987611.38248.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <987611.38248.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Organization: Solipsys Limited MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Message-Id: <200908241024.45768.science@solipsys.co.uk> X-PurleyHosting-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-PurleyHosting-MailScanner-ID: 1MfVnz-00070w-1y X-PurleyHosting-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-PurleyHosting-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.468, required 5, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60, TVD_RCVD_IP 1.93) X-PurleyHosting-MailScanner-From: lojban@solipsys.co.uk X-Spam-Status: No X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server3.spellings.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lojban.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - solipsys.co.uk X-archive-position: 15998 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojban@solipsys.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list 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). stevo said: > What evidence do you have that it's a crock? Then 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). As with many who have an interest in lojban, this interests me. It especially interests me via computing, mathematics and juggling. I have experienced directly what seem to me to be Whorfian effects. In mathematics I've used language to help find and create mathematical forms that subsequently prove to be useful. In programming, changing the language I use sometimes helping to clarify a problem and suggest an algorithm that I subsequently felt would not have surfaced using the original language. In juggling, the development of a notation for (a class of) juggling led to the discovery of hundreds of previously unknown patterns, and the way people describe patterns has significantly changed. I believe the way people think about juggling changes when they learn the notation. Perhaps I'm not using the SWH in its original form, but certainly every time I've talked about the topic with multipolyglots they've looked at me in bewilderment, wondering how anyone could believe that choice of language does not affect/limit/expand thought. Some time ago I read an unpublished PhD thesis in which the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was given to confirmed English/German bilinguals, once in one language, then later in the other. As I recall, and it's been some time, the coordinate bilinguals showed a clear shift in their personalities between the languages, the compound bilinguals less so. (I think. As I say, it's been some time). The clear thing that I do remember is that there was a definite shift, which to me provides evidence that something is definitely happening. Finally, would you care to comment on how Lera Boroditsky's work is being received and its implications? http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/ Thanks for an interesting discussion. Colin -- The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. -- Lady Bracknell, The Importance of Being Earnest. 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.