Xref: utzoo sci.lang:7061 comp.cog-eng:1751 sci.psychology:3180 sci.philosophy.tech:3167 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wang!wdr From: wdr@wang.com (William Ricker) Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.cog-eng,sci.psychology,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Computer Languages and the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis Keywords: computer languages, Sapir/Whorf hypothesis, linguistics Message-ID: Date: 23 Aug 90 20:45:06 GMT References: <2674@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <2846@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA Lines: 31 [Context: question of whether the language of users constrains thought, and whether the levels of abstraction involved in discussing said hypothsis make it difficult to discuss] colin@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Colin Matheson) writes: ]Perhaps it's true that the act of "compressing" abstractions into concepts ]represented by single lexical items or phrases has a qualitative effect on ]the kinds of things it is possible to talk about. Thus although it's ]probably the case that one can express any particular concept in any ]language periphrastically, it might just be that the ability to encapsulate ]things in immediately transeferrable units affects the sorts of transfer ]that are possible. (Where the transfer is of information between humans.) If I understood that periphrastic version of the hypothesis, I think it has as a corollary that English is not highly suited to it's own transfer. Which, given the context, I suspect may have been Colin's point, but if it wasn't, I'll suggest it more openly. Is a natural language the right language in which to discuss the deficiencies of natural languages? That it was not was one of the original motivations of the Loglan/Lojban successor of Esperanto. Can one of you sci.lang folken translate the S/W hypotheses various statements in this newsgroup lately into Lojban and give us an un-biases account of how manipulable they are in a non-formal yet un-natural language? -- /bill ricker/ wdr@wang.com a/k/a wricker@northeastern.edu *** Warning: This account not authorized to express opinions ***