In Linguistics, The Eskimo/snow question is a variation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
It sounds good, but it’s wrong. Here’s the theory: Eskimos have 9 or 18 or 27 (or some big number) of words for snow. Ed Sapir and Benjamin Whorf came up with this theory around 1900. The basic idea is that language affects the way we think. Eskimos have a zillion words for snow, so their brains must be different from us.
Benjamin Whorf was an insurance guy from Connecticut in 1910 and he went to the Southwestern U.S. to study the Hopi language and Navajo language. He said, “Whoa! These languages are weird.” And he came up with a theory that language affects the way we think (which is an attractive theory).
But later, in 1956, Noam Chomsky came up with the theory that human brains are mostly similar. So most languages are similar (because human brains are pretty much the same, which means that children who are learning a language, learn in the same way."
I grew up in Minnesota, where we call snow, “snow.” Unless we called it “snirt” (snow plus dirt), or “slush” or “good snowball snow.” or “dry snow” or “wet snow” and if you’re gonna go cross-country skiing," then it’s blue snow or red snow. I bet I could come up with 20 or 30 names for snow. Not because I speak English (and I’m not an Eskimo). But I could give you thirty words or phrases in English.
People in Cincinnati have five words for spaghetti noodles with chile. Does that mean they’re somehow superior?
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Don’t leave us hanging. What are those five words? Depending on how creative the terms are, I might be willing to admit that Cincinnatians are superior.
Edward T. Hall in “The Dance of Life” (and probably some of his other books as well) argues that language reflects culture, and culture determines what can and cannot be thought. He is very careful to say this doesn’t make one culture superior.
One example he cites: The Hopi think about time very differently than we do. Also, Hopi verbs have no tenses. There is no distinction between past, present and future. Culture shapes language (no sense inventing words for concepts you don’t have) and language shapes culture (no way to talk / think about a concept if you have no words for it).
What evidence did Chomsky offer in support of his theory? (This should not be read as a challenge, b ut as a sincere question.)
But Cecil himself said “In fact, for a long time ‘Eskimo’ was thought to be a derisive Native American term meaning ‘eater of raw flesh,’ although this is now discounted.” (in http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010119.html ).
Also, they prefer to be called “Inuit”. “Inuit” (no s) is plural, “Inuk” is singular.
This comes perilously close to exhausting my knowledge of Inuktitut, despite hours of classes, and working with Inuit on a daily basis. Fiendishly difficult language for someone whose first language is English.
jmonster presumably had Steven Pinker of MIT and his The Language Instinct (William Morrow, 1994) in mind. He devotes about a page to the Hopi sense of time, citing the anthropologist Ekkehart Malotki’s Hopi Time (Mouton, 1983) as his source for Whorf being plain wrong about the matter.