Loyal to the Group of Seventeen

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 12 Jun 2002, 21:17 · from urth-v0206.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) Loyal to the Group of Seventeen
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:17:10 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0206-1229 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0206/1229.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hartshorn writes...

> Interesting thought.   The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has a long=20
> pedigree in SF (cf Vance THE LANGUAGES OF PAO) but is almost
> certinly untrue.

I think "too strong" is probably more accurate than "untrue." Language,
along with other mental structures, does pretty clearly _guide_ the=20
way we think about things. It doesn't have the property of absolute=20
constraint/restraing that Sapir-Whorf suggests.

One of the reasons Sapir-Whorf (whether or not named as such) has
so strong a pedigree in SF is doubtless its strongest instantiation,
the study of General Semantics, founded by Count Alfred Korzybski,=20
which essentially claims that most if not all "mental" problems stem=20
from the use of "language" that does not correspond to "reality." (I=20
place those words in quotes because in g-s they have special technical
meanings.) General semantics has (to a greater or lesser extent)=20
influenced a large number of SF writers directly, including van Vogt,=20
Heinlein, and Delany; it seems likely enough that it also influences
others indirectly through these.

> In fact we now know that children bought up in a civilisation=20
> that spoke only in these tags would spontaneously Creolise the
> language, generating a real language with a built in grammar from
> it.

H'mmm. I think to say "we know" is, again, a bit too strong: "we=20
have strong reason to believe," yes. Some popularizers (Pinker comes=20
readily to mind) have a tendency to state these things as firm and
established fact, when we're dealing in an area where experimentation
is nearly impossible and field data is always already tainted by
interaction with other cultures.

> At what time did Chomskyan ideas about language - intrinsic, built-in
> metagrammar - become standard?    Did Wolfe know?

I don't know if they are "standard," but they are certainly influential
and taught in most linguistics curricula. I think the whole "deep
grammar" idea is still somewhat controversial, despite the claims of,
once again, Pinker that the whole thing is settled.

--Blattid

Burro: An ass. Burrow: A hole in the ground. Be sure you know the
difference.

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net