From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 05 09:28:23 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYjLj-0000yZ-FA for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:28:23 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.119]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYjLc-0000xL-Uz for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:28:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 82298 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Aug 2009 16:28:10 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1249489690; bh=ahdhpokHZPtCPL1+A1q0zWdgeM5zlv6cJan/adisa7o=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=die2Mm1DYPFzD9xO4DUUBAPD5Y6v2Me3X27hRdueyAIfd8I+Z3boRgthVi3EKeAmlhp19Rqnyno9JB2UHZ7oqymdxulRTWxOesWTLTDDo8ObiNTs9JTs1LwrNo++F4jVSZno6DnqlWuckmUr3y9iVaWR52rYxPzENEzv5jgG9KY= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Mm2JszFgH4Gl2Wm1e3ncSRKLzoC7Dx5wSoPrU2oONrAV5J2zkUVsz+OWQ1GPGcaXJCnF8pdT1nn7vk/xqgBAgz4ofhGq8MrpsDj5h0Bj/Vx1HrYPMYI17CgbE8hmP6PTBlgVkgj1zg7HwhToyvuRG2LQLDZHC6LSIYZ6vClgBOM=; Message-ID: <500926.81477.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 2vxnyk0VM1klAaTPgMVv0B1RsqMgESWNdyUyYFWVHhgAoz9b_2BqZnn82ugYEj6RpAOueMR9Rg9k._rZf4aUn3DrfM9FOzdEDh.3u2lqkKk5mq3gNx_tBxZlIIxZzexbMBCTxYXCzPoS60D5X1XVtyNlGB.Ykeeow3ONJ6II4XGTsFSdqUGSlwKOL_gB.7cpLmSyoppxMmZG7Hs0PNvlMUwrCooG839ohs0AWGviX24ojkvQ_J2l6K5dF5F6K5cSMmsTmfbenJ6MFStyDexlQmSJaMfj1J5ZXpLBT5.4E26qXnrxrXqNAR4Syiik5uABszLGiqfirCXH2XXz20q3HaAZ6TvP_jNFfLWgNYDO Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:28:10 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1357.22 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.10 References: <987611.38248.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5715b9300908050714m209051e9ud8ab75e7b236cc85@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:28:10 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <5715b9300908050714m209051e9ud8ab75e7b236cc85@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1855829429-1249489690=:81477" X-archive-position: 15905 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0-1855829429-1249489690=:81477 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 > --0-1855829429-1249489690=:81477 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
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 <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
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 <kali9putra@yahoo.com> 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" <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



--0-1855829429-1249489690=:81477-- 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.