Post #2096978

There are two types of linguistic relativity: "strong" and "weak". Usually, when people simply say "linguistic relativity", they're talking about the strong view. **In the "strong" view**, language limits your thought, perception, etc. You'd be completely unable to understand certain concepts, unless your language has words for them. Nowadays we know it to be false, but in Orwell's times it was popular, and Orwell was clueless about how languages work, so he used it in 1984 (that's where Newspeak comes from). **In the "weak" view**, language doesn't dictate your thought or perception, but influences them a bit. It's probably true, but it's a rather trivial conclusion. So, for example. Let's say there's some language out there using the exact same word for two different concepts: * unrestricted, unchained, unbound * costless, at no exchange of money If the strong version was true, a monolingual speaker of said language would be completely unable to tell both concepts apart. But since the weaker version is true, they can do it; it's just they'll have a bit of a harder time. (The language from the example is English, by the way. Cue to "free beer" and "free software".)