From xod@thestonecutters.net Sat Nov 30 11:19:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 19:19:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 56924 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 19:19:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 19:19:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 19:19:24 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18ID9A-0006Tg-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:19:24 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18ID8w-0006TN-00; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:19:10 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18ID8m-0006T6-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:19:00 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAUJIUP48226; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:18:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:18:30 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: hartovav@post.tau.ac.il Subject: [lojban] Re: Specific example of Sapir-Whorf in English OR How Lojban made me think more clearly In-Reply-To: <003401c29885$d8bd1d60$0300a8c0@avitallap> Message-ID: <20021130135939.U47281-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2794 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple 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.