![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The whole concept of linguistic relativity boggles my mind in that it isn't just taken for granted. To be objective enough and a clear enough scientist that the basic assumptions of a rational observer could lend themselves to questioning is admirable to me.
In my personal experience, language has always seemed to shape thought. So much so, in fact, that when I was beginning to invent my silly little language to go with my fantasy culture and species, I was discouraged because I thought I couldn't think differently enough from myself to make up a language that would be legitimately different. I came up with a grammar and a syntax and a few vocabulary words that English wouldn't ever have (gembi, adj. : appearing lazy, accomplished, fulfilled, efficient (a positive sense of lazy), and haia, n. : the custom or taboo of wearing clothing in public (seen as outlandish by the inhabitants of my little continent)). My word for circle is always plural, because circles are infinite, and there are twelve different words for claw, depending on its length, retractability, sharpness and color. There are three words for feel, depending on the context; to touch, contact or handle is different from sensing, empathizing or intuiting, and those are again different from a feeling that is not influenced by something outside of oneself.
Thus, I tried to come up with a cultural perspective different from my own and any I've studied (impossible, but I tried), simply because I thought the language must be different. It seems obvious now that that's not a concrete law of reality, and so reading all the questioning and explanation of evidence is extremely interesting.
In my personal experience, language has always seemed to shape thought. So much so, in fact, that when I was beginning to invent my silly little language to go with my fantasy culture and species, I was discouraged because I thought I couldn't think differently enough from myself to make up a language that would be legitimately different. I came up with a grammar and a syntax and a few vocabulary words that English wouldn't ever have (gembi, adj. : appearing lazy, accomplished, fulfilled, efficient (a positive sense of lazy), and haia, n. : the custom or taboo of wearing clothing in public (seen as outlandish by the inhabitants of my little continent)). My word for circle is always plural, because circles are infinite, and there are twelve different words for claw, depending on its length, retractability, sharpness and color. There are three words for feel, depending on the context; to touch, contact or handle is different from sensing, empathizing or intuiting, and those are again different from a feeling that is not influenced by something outside of oneself.
Thus, I tried to come up with a cultural perspective different from my own and any I've studied (impossible, but I tried), simply because I thought the language must be different. It seems obvious now that that's not a concrete law of reality, and so reading all the questioning and explanation of evidence is extremely interesting.