Fascinating. For discussions on similar questions do a search on HN for "Sapir Whorf":<p><a href="http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=sapir+whorf" rel="nofollow">http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=sapir+whorf</a><p>In particular, we have:<p>How language shapes thought (scientificamerican.com) <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2594625" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2594625</a><p>Sapir-Whorf with Programming Languages (nklein.com) <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374796" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374796</a><p>In what language do deaf people think? (straightdope.com)
<a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1505365" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1505365</a><p>... and many, many more.<p>Sapir-Whorf has fallen out of favor, and perhaps in its original, or more correctly "more extreme" form it is not true, but there are so many studies and anecdotes that polyglots I speak with claim it's "obviously true. Sort of."<p>So this article is another piece of evidence in the attempt to construct a model of what's really true, and to avoid the unseemly trap of "linguistic relativism."<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis</a>