Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!insosf1.infonet.net!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Archaic Greek/Eskimo
Message-ID: <CzqIGJ.J7w@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <3arn54$cmm@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 19:07:30 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <3arn54$cmm@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
Heraklitus <heraklitus@aol.com> wrote:
>While investigating the differences between the Archaic and Classical
>Greek languages, the subject of Eskimo vocabulary for snow has been raised
>to illustrate the large number of verbs used in Archaic Greek.  This
>provoked several responses citing studies that have "proved" the Eskimo's
>large vocabulary for snow to be no different than English.  The English
>merely say powder snow, or falling snow, or hard-packed snow, etc.
>
>The problem is that all of these studies make the mistake of assuming that
>there is one thing called snow, of which there are several varieties. 
>This, however, is the English language classification of reality (a
>Platonic abstraction?) and there is absolutely no evidence that the Eskimo
>regard these phenomena as varieties of one thing.  To him they are
>sensuously and operationally different - they are different things, not
>different varieties of one thing.  

And what is your evidence for this statement?  The "sensuously and 
operationally different" quote comes from Whorf, and Whorf offered no
support for it either.

The studies attacking the supposed huge Eskimo vocabulary for snow (Laura
Martin's for instance) have not been making assumptions about Eskimo 
psychology-- quite the reverse.  It is the legions of people who make claims 
about Eskimo vocabulary who generally can't support the numbers they give,
nor the conclusions they draw about the Eskimos.
