I'd rather say that the extreme (strong) version of this, as propounded by people _after_ Sapir and Whorf, does not find
strong support. :)
The weak form is almost irrefutable--if you don't have words for something, it's hard to talk about it; if you lack
enough words for something _and_ for talking about it, it can be hard to think about it.
Thus, "language limits thought"; but IIRC, neither Sapir nor Whorf actually said that in anything they wrote, and
certainly not the strong stuff their followers put up.
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 - 14:40:03 MDT