The way you two talk
Dec. 15th, 2010 12:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lightcastleThe Economist hosts a debate on whether the language we speak shapes the way we think.
As most of you know, I'm not a believer in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in any kind of strong form.
The "anti" position is being taken by one of the regulars at Language Log who freely admits he isn't all that "anti" the hypothesis so much as the way it get used in pop culture.
I think my favourite part of the debate, though, is the commenter who phrased things thusly:
"Eskimos have separate words for flurries, blizzard, slush, powder, sleet, hail, graupel, drifts, névé, frost, ice, glaciers, … while we poor benighted English-speakers are stuck with the work-around of sticking modifiers on one word, "snow", for any solid H2O from the atmosphere."
As most of you know, I'm not a believer in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in any kind of strong form.
The "anti" position is being taken by one of the regulars at Language Log who freely admits he isn't all that "anti" the hypothesis so much as the way it get used in pop culture.
I think my favourite part of the debate, though, is the commenter who phrased things thusly:
"Eskimos have separate words for flurries, blizzard, slush, powder, sleet, hail, graupel, drifts, névé, frost, ice, glaciers, … while we poor benighted English-speakers are stuck with the work-around of sticking modifiers on one word, "snow", for any solid H2O from the atmosphere."
