From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Jun 12 04:12:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 12 Jun 2001 11:12:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 32736 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 11:12:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 11:12:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 11:12:55 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (35.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.35]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5CBCr686470 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010612071438.00dae700@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:18:03 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 06:04 PM 06/11/2001 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: Sapir never formulates the hypothesis explicitly, but it is adumbrated in >many of his works -- as well as in the works of many predecessors back at >least to von Humboldt (several pieces in the Sapir collection that I remember >as Language and Culture, but I don't have a copy of, deal with the themes of >the hypothesis). Not much has happened in the whole area since the late '50's >when linguists got all wrapped up in computation. Actually, this isn't quite true. In the 80s, Kay and Kempton, doing some color-word research, accidentally found some technical confirmation of Sapir-Whorf, which rendered the controversy alive again. The Chomskyans of course have tended to denigrate the hypothesis, while other schools of linguistics seem agnostic about the issue. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org