Since the primary topic of this forum is
ontology, I found a very relevant quote from Simon Spero’s link to SWH in
Wikipedia:
The categories and types that we isolate from
the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer
in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of
impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely
by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into
concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to
an agreement to organize it in this way—an agreement that holds
throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.
This seems related to the “engineering
language” phenomenon noted by Steven Ericsson-Zenith regarding such
languages as Lisp and C, and how their user communities differ.
So the proper conclusion, IMHO, is that
the “categories and types” that Sapir noted as “staring each
observer in the face” are subjected to the compression effects of each
language as practiced. C emphasizes the procedural, but in fact any
declarative structure in Lisp can also be represented in C, though less
compactly. So in C it is easier, and more compressed, to write procedural
code, while Lisp offers a more compact representation of declarations, and a
somewhat foggier representation of procedures.
I suppose that early peoples would have
placed a high value on compression of language, since speech during a hunt
would have risked losing the hunted critter. The emphasis of compressed
structures would have had evolutionary value, and hence would have affected the
way we descended from the most cost-effective speakers rather than from the
more prosaically inclined.
Personally, I prefer Delphi
and Lisp to most others, such as Prolog or COBOL or FORTRAN. The elegance
of my preferred two is what draws me; either Delphi
(with its elaborate component set) or Lisp (with its flowery expressiveness) can
support elegant programming.
Elegant programming can support
discussions of the correctness of the program among programmers more easily
than obfuscated programs in inelegant languages. Since this form of language
is important to us in modern usage, more important than the deeper compression
I suspect early peoples used, I prefer it.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013
12:25 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/#Who