Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site osu-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!osu-eddie!zwicky
From: zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (AIlist)
Message-ID: <495@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 22:55:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.495
Posted: Mon Jul 22 22:55:22 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jul-85 08:55:03 EDT
Reply-To: zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ohio State Univ., CIS Dept., Cols, Oh.
Lines: 15

Expires:
Followup-To:net.nlang


 This is not the group for this comment, but I can't resist
the temptation to squash a misunderstanding where it started.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its strong form (The one that
states that if you can't say it, you can't think it) is now
known to be wrong. I repeat WRONG. The weak form, which states that
language CAN influence culture, and that culture DOES influence
language is completely true. Thought and culture both influence
language much more than the other way around. The stong version of
the Sapir-Whorf theory is admittedly much more interesting and exciting,
but remember "There is always a solution to any problem which is
simple, intuitive, and wrong" The Sapir-Whorf theory is one such,
more's the pity. 

-Elizabeth D. Zwicky