3 ms·
> In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I believe the relevant quote
by a1369209993 4y ago
> In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right.
I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I believe the relevant quote goes something like:
"The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously false to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for.
The weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously true to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for."
(In the context of a formulation where the strong version is that language limitations make certain things impossible to think or express, and the weak version is that language limitations just make certain things difficult or inconvenient to think or express.)
- thaumasiotes 4y agoYou've got some very significant equivocation going on there though. The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that the lack of a familiar term makes things difficult to think. The obvious proof of the weak hypothesis proves that lack of a familiar term makes concepts difficult to express. It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept.
- a1369209993 4y ago> It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept. As the quote suggests, it very much is obvious to anyone who has felt the need to coin a new term in order to reduce difficulty in thinking about a concept.