Yes, this is true. Consensus is largely that language can certainly influence thought in language-specific domains, and that it can influence aspects of cognition in other domains, but only to the extent of shifting probabilities and defaults around—not to the extent of controlling how speakers think or preventing some types of thought according to languages spoken.
Most “grammar nerds” I know are linguists, who think this is neat because they’re more interested in how language works on a more fundamental level than individual grammars (though of course those are interesting too). I guess it’s possible that conlang types have the opposite view! I was just amused by the distinction between what we think of when thinking “grammar nerd”.
Yes, this is true. Consensus is largely that language can certainly influence thought in language-specific domains, and that it can influence aspects of cognition in other domains, but only to the extent of shifting probabilities and defaults around—not to the extent of controlling how speakers think or preventing some types of thought according to languages spoken.
Most “grammar nerds” I know are linguists, who think this is neat because they’re more interested in how language works on a more fundamental level than individual grammars (though of course those are interesting too). I guess it’s possible that conlang types have the opposite view! I was just amused by the distinction between what we think of when thinking “grammar nerd”.
I was thinking of the people involved in things like lojban. Who were you thinking of?
Academic linguists. (I am one—or, a psycholinguist, anyway.)