Yes, it was interesting. When I read it yesterday, it seemed at the beginning -- where the author was saying that much of what Benjamin Lee Whorf had written was wrong -- that he was insisting that the language you speak does *not* shape how you think. But later the article gave a number of examples that seemed to confirm that it does. So I'm puzzled as to what the author believes. I have no doubt that aspects of English shape how we think. A striking example is that when you say you "do not believe" or "do not like" X, your not at all saying merely that "It is false that I believe (or like) X." Instead you're saying you disbelieve, or dislike, X. It's as if English is pushing you to have an opinion. You have to go out of your way to express the fact that you're just not yet convinced of something, or don't yet know how much you like it. I don't know how many other languages have the same issue. --Dan << Interesting article, I thought, by Guy Deutscher in Thursday's N.Y. Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=1&partner=rs... "In order to speak a language like Guugu Yimithirr, you need to know where the cardinal directions are at each and every moment of your waking life." "... some languages, like Matses in Peru, oblige their speakers, like the finickiest of lawyers, to specify exactly how they came to know about the facts they are reporting... If a statement is reported with the incorrect 'evidentiality', it is considered a lie."
_____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele