Re: [lojban] Specific example of Sapir-Whorf in English OR How Lojbanmade me think more clearly

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Avital Oliver wrote:

> The fact that english allows this to be said without having to notice the
> 'missing' "x1" would cause, assuming Sapir-Whorf, for people to believe that
> there are things that were "meant to be" even though they do not believe in
> 'God'.



I've heard the phrase "intended by nature", as well. Thought reveals that
nature can't really have any intentions, but intention is an
anthropomorphic device we use to express the idea of innate forces, like
"information wants to be free", or "objects want to fall downwards".

In English this metaphor seems to be the easiest way to express the
concept. Intention is so much easier to express than a non-sentient innate
force. I'm not sure how to word it in English at all; I think I'd have to
focus on the force ("There's a force that compels information to be free")
instead of the subject.

The SW appears here: do English speakers somehow anthropomorphize
non-static non-sentients more than speakers of a language that can express
the idea without relying on the above hack? What about Hebrew; does it too
try to force its speakers into using similar phrasing?

In this month's issue of New Scientist there is a cover story about the
comeback of SW thinking in defiance of the Chomskian hegemony. Perhaps
their website (ostensibly http://www.newscientist.com/) will feel like
working again by the time you read this mail.


-- 
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.