<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ralph Kessel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ralphkessel75@yahoo.com">ralphkessel75@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">This to the view that linguistic/semantic factors determine how we view the world, eg the Eskimos/Inuit have over 20 words for snow. </div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>The Eskimo thing is a popular misconception. Cf. Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it cites real sources):<br><br>"""<br>There are two principal fallacies in this legend. The first is that Eskimo languages have more words for snow than English does, when they may have a few more or fewer, depending on which Eskimo language is considered. These words are viewed as pertaining to the same concept: for example, blizzards and flurries are two different types of snow, but they are both recognized as 'snow' in the general sense. Speakers of Eskimo languages categorize different types of snow in a similar manner to English speakers.<br>
<br>The second fallacy comes from a misconception of what are to be considered "words". As in other polysynthetic languages, the use of derivational suffixes and noun-incorporation results in terms or language codes that may include various descriptive nuances, whether describing snow or any other concept. Because Eskimo languages are polysynthetic, they describe concepts in compound terms or 'words' of unlimited length.<p>
"""<br></p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow</a>