History of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

	Revision 17 . . December 7, 2001 7:11 am by Ed Poor [neutral and non-neutral words (to Taw)]
	Revision 16 . . December 7, 2001 7:00 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
	Revision 15 . . December 7, 2001 4:21 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
	Revision 14 . . December 6, 2001 9:11 am by J Hofmann Kemp [ed]
	Revision 13 . . (edit) December 6, 2001 8:44 am by Ed Poor
	Revision 12 . . December 6, 2001 8:44 am by Ed Poor [how does S-W bear on feminism and he or she?]
	Revision 11 . . December 6, 2001 8:11 am by Alan D
	Revision 10 . . December 6, 2001 5:50 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
	Revision 9 . . December 6, 2001 4:16 am by Ed Poor [think I agree]
	Revision 8 . . December 6, 2001 4:02 am by Alan D [???]
	Revision 7 . . December 6, 2001 3:50 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
	Revision 6 . . December 6, 2001 3:50 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
	Revision 5 . . December 6, 2001 3:49 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
	Revision 4 . . December 6, 2001 3:44 am by Ed Poor [anti-feminist bias?]
	Revision 3 . . December 6, 2001 3:43 am by (logged).202.117.xxx
	Revision 2 . . December 6, 2001 3:40 am by Taw [npov, examples]
	Revision 1 . . December 6, 2001 3:30 am by Ed Poor [last 2 sentences don't fit]

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 54a55,61

Taw, tell us more about these points:

:"Almost every social group modifies its language by replacing neutral words with non-neutral ones with the same meaning (could somebody provide some English examples here: for Jehovah Witnesses, hackers etc.). It can be interpreted as trying to take benefit of Sapir-Whorf effect and enforcing all members of the group to think in the same way."

1. Why is this relevant to S-W hypoth?
2. Is this the best place for your observation? Sounds like a propaganda tactic to me, rather than a way of limiting thought. Ed Poor