rubs wrote:not sure what i'm meant to argue.
I'm still trying to figure out why you call Navajo "incredibly regular" when, as far as I can see, it has roughly the same amount of irregularity as most other languages I've studied.
rubs wrote:I never intended you to read that I thought it was particular to amerindians.
Other than finner nuances, I wanted to give somewhat varried examples.
Just naming a language isn't an example of anything. If you think Yup'ik is "expressing concepts previously entirely alien to the culture without requiring any degree of lexicalisation", then I'd like to see some instances of that.
rubs wrote:But if you mean In the sense that categories exist at some level and that their must be some cognitive coding or translation, and that language plays some role in this, and I understood what you said about lojban being an exception in some sense to this.
But I can assure you that lojban certainly has sets and categories.
even though I’m in no way fluent.
But they're not structured the same. Please, if you're not familiar with prototype theory, read up on it before you try dispute which languages use graded categories (i.e. all natural human languages) as opposed to monothetic Aristotelian ones (e.g. Lojban). That's why I provided a link.