People reading Damien Broderick and Charles Hixson might come away
believing that I am a supporter of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Here is the second paragraph about it, sent Mon 8/6/2001 6:46 PM,
that I wrote:
>> But the possibility has been overblown, in my opinion. The
>> high point of this view occurred in the 1950's. Since then,
>> the counter-reaction has been that we are not so much damaged
>> or affected by our terminology as had been thought. All
>> human languages, for example, are almost equally effective in
>> connoting, with some interesting exceptions. But they're no
>> longer regarded as all powerful in shaping our thoughts.
I have been enlightened by those who point out that the Sapir-Whorf
hypthesis should be considered to have a "strong" form and a
"weak" form, and made other remarks.
Lee
Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 06:46 PM 8/6/01 -0700, Lee wrote:
>
>>Are you familiar with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
>
> It turned out to be (almost entirely) wrong.
>
> Look up Berlin and Kay, or Eleanor Rosch. This was established at least two
> decades ago.
>
> Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT