LINGUIST List 2.603

Tue 01 Oct 1991

Disc: Whorf and Plurals

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. , Re: 2.588 Responses: Whorf, Einstein, Change
2. , Re: 2.588 Responses: Whorf, Einstein, Change
3. , Re: 2.594 Queries: Whorf
4. Ellen Prince, Re: 2.599 Plurals
5. Michael Covington, Re: 2.599 Plurals

Message 1: Re: 2.588 Responses: Whorf, Einstein, Change

This is a reply to Manater-Ramer's suspicion that Hoijer is (in part) res-
ponsible for perpetrating the idea that Whorf believed that the language
someone speaking structures their thinking about the world. At a conference
in the 50s on the Whorf hypothesis (I can dig up the reference if necessary),
Hoijer felt compelled to get up and tell the assembly of linguists, anthro-
pologists, and psychologists, who had been happily beating on what they
thought was Whorf, that they had best read the original. Hoijer
was specifically annoyed that these scholar's had taken the inverted view
of Whorf's ideas that Manaster-Ramer derides. (No, I wan't at that confer-
ence, but Hoijer's reaction was noted down -- perhaps in his obituary in
Language).
John Kingston
University of Massachusetts

Message 2: Re: 2.588 Responses: Whorf, Einstein, Change

 (1)
Subject : Whorf
> One's world view is determined by the language one speaks
This is in the order of belief (which, by the way, I share).
Now, is there any way to demonstrate/show/prove/determine
*how* the language determine one's view ? To my knowledge, no.
Marc

Message 3: Re: 2.594 Queries: Whorf

>Here's this week's subject for an empirical study of attitudes toward
>language. On the basis of unsystematic observation and impressionistic
>judgements which are confirmed by all other linguists I've consulted, it
>would appear that the view that one's world view is determined by the
>language one speaks is nearly universally accepted by educated people
>who aren't linguists. I guess I don't find that particularly strange
>(a lot of my friends, however, consider ME extremenly strange for
>being skeptical on this point); I DO find it somewhat odd that people
>who accept this view seem to think that it is (a) obviously correct, and
>(b) profound, a contradiction in terms. I welcome further data and
insights.
>
>Michael Kac
If you credit yourself with sufficient intelligence there is no
*contradiction* in finding something obviously correct and profound at the
same time. It is not illogical to be conceited.
My belief is that the question is potentially empirical ("potentially"
because the concept of 'world view' could do with some explication before
we start devising psycholinguistic experiments), but that its empirical
nature is obscured by current deeply-entrenched mentalist conceptions of
grammar and lexicon. If you believe that a grammatical or lexical
description cannot be understood as anything but a description of cognitive
structures, then it may start looking obvious that grammar and lexicon must
determine the way you think and perceive.
Helge Dyvik

Message 4: Re: 2.599 Plurals

>From: "Michael Kac" <kaccs.umn.edu>
>Subject: Re: 2.589 Odd Plurals
>For all you Latin fans out there: next time you hear someone complaining
>about the use of words like *bacteria* and *media* as singulars in English,
>ask what they do with *agenda* and *propoganda*.
not to mention *data*...

Message 5: Re: 2.599 Plurals

"Propaganda" is not a Latin plural. It is originally a feminine ablative
singular, from "Congregatio de Propaganda Fide" ("Organization to
Propagate the Faith," roughly; non-Latinists note that "Propaganda" is
a gerundive, i.e., a passive future-or-optative-or-something participle).
But then, "bus" is part of an inflectional ending...
- Michael A. Covington internet mcovingtuga.cc.uga.edu -
- Artificial Intelligence Programs bitnet MCOVINGTUGA -
- Graduate Studies Research Center phone 404 542-0359 -
- The University of Georgia fax 404 542-0349 -
- Athens, Georgia 30602 bix, mci mail MCOVINGTON -
- U.S.A. packet radio N4TMIWB4BSG -