Hacker News Reader

Comment by _emacsomancer_ | Hacker News Reader

Alchemy is a bit more reasonable.

Even the weak version falls apart under scrutiny. Here's a nice example of this: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/4/81/fi...

This is a good example of a case where there was a phenomenon (a language prominently using non-speaker-oriented direction terms, and correlations with real-world behaviour of speakers of that language) which seemed to support a weak version of SW, but it turns that seemingly supporting evidence was really just a by-product of the testing environment.

View on HN

I'm not sure how the study you linked is an indictment of the weak version. It seems to fall well under my understanding of the consensus that the weak version is only true to a certain extent and definitely not to the extent Sapir and Whorf originally claimed.

So this does present an interesting result, and one that (AFAICT---I am not a linguist by training) does run counter to the claims of SWH but, more importantly, the study is limited only to spatial reasoning. Surely there are more areas of thought than that?

The study shows that differences in systems of direction words doesn't really affect spatial reasoning.

Yes, this one study doesn't disprove every aspect of SWH, but it's a good example of how SWH claims, even in the weaker versions, tend to fare when subject to more rigorous investigation & analysis.

What area of thought do you think provides good evidence for (some version of) the SWH?

Given that language is also created or modified by people in order to get their ideas across, wouldn’t it make sense if one can have thoughts arise that don’t fit into language but then they cannot be shared without the creation of appropriate language. I often have the experience of having ideas that I have in a sort of mathematical reasoning space (this here makes that there impossible) that I have to translate into English. (Eg If the the call is routed at the IP layer then they can’t reach this no matter what DNS they have access to)

People do, of course, create new vocabulary, but that's not modifying language on a deep level. And, in part that's a convenience: even when you don't have a "word" for something, you can generally describe it. But if it's something you're going to refer to frequently having a nice lexical entry for it is more convenient. We have memory limitations, so sometimes having convenient handles can free up resources.

And your example, I think, also speaks to the point: you're able to reason in mathematical ways; being a speaker of English doesn't block this, even though English perhaps doesn't offer convenient vocabulary for this in all cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com