> meaning that a language would make it impossible think certain thoughts. This is obviously wrong.
But is it necessarily actually wrong? Shame there's no word for this ubiquitous phenomenon, at least none that hasn't become so loaded it can't be used and taken seriously.
> Have you ever experienced anything for which you didn't have the words to explain? This already proves that you can feel and think things that are not easily expressed in the languages you know.
This is not the same thing - here you already have the thoughts, but lack the corresponding language. It is the inability to go in the other direction that is hypothesized. I'm pretty sure there's a word for this but I can't recall it....isomorphic, or something in that neighborhood?
But is it necessarily actually wrong? Shame there's no word for this ubiquitous phenomenon, at least none that hasn't become so loaded it can't be used and taken seriously.
> Have you ever experienced anything for which you didn't have the words to explain? This already proves that you can feel and think things that are not easily expressed in the languages you know.
This is not the same thing - here you already have the thoughts, but lack the corresponding language. It is the inability to go in the other direction that is hypothesized. I'm pretty sure there's a word for this but I can't recall it....isomorphic, or something in that neighborhood?