One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

-sigh-"Well, according to your definition, language is a means of communicating how a person conceptualizes the world. Therefore, they come to their conclusions as to how the world around them functions by using their senses."From Round 1: "Language: Complex system of communication used within a group of people." I have no idea how you derived that meaning from the definition I provided. And I have no idea where the "senses" thing is derived from, since it doesn't even follow your first premise."If a child touches a hot stove, their sense of touch will tell them that when the stove is hot, it hurts to touch it and therefore they come to the conclusion that they should not touch hot things. If someone says, "He will wipe you out" (one of the quotes you gave), that is simply that persons observations of the situation."The "child touching a stove" thing misses the point. And one person can refer to winning an argument as "wiping someone out," while in another language, it can be called "shaking someone's hand." The qualities of the words used to depict concepts artifically relate them to other concepts in our minds."Communication comes in when that person tells another person how they"ve come to understand what whatever it is that they"re preaching. But even then, that person can be told over and over how someone else sees a situation, but they never truly gain an understanding of the world around them with out experiencing it for themselves."Indeed, someone who has not experienced "A" usually has a different perception of "A" than someone who experienced "A". I am arguing that someone who experienced "A" through English can experience "A" differently from someone who experienced "A" through a different language. (As an aside, "communication" does not necessarily entail "preaching.")"The structure of how one communicates does not affect their world understanding. According to an interviewee in the Zeitgeist movie (available on youtube), studies from reputable science institutions have shown that an unborn fetus in the mother"s womb can actually learn from the environment surrounding it."I am not arguing that one's native language is the sole factor in world view development. I am arguing that it is a factor in world view development. Indeed, cognitive development is affected by environmental factors other than language. I concede that point."Another point, there are ways for humans to communicate their perceptions of the world around them by not using any form of language. If someone gives another person an option between a red pill and blue pill (matrix reference haha) and when offered the blue pill, he turns away, the other person can easily assume he would rather have the red pill."That's called "body language." "Some one [sic] can frantically point to right or west or whatever not saying a world at all and people would understand what they mean and turn that way. Not quite sure those are the best example but I"m sure you can understand my point."What if there is a culture, hypothetically, whose language system does not include pointing to indicate directionality? I would call these poor examples, but I have yet to even see the precise point you are trying to make."A person perceives the world around them due to their senses. Communication is simple [sic] a tool that man uses to share their perceptions. Sure, words like "sour" and "right or west" mean different things in different languages, but they are used to convey an understanding by the user and are subject to that person"s interpretation. A hottie to the west could not be a hottie at all to someone else. They must use their sense of vision to determine whether or not he perceives her as good looking."This misses the point. You're right that language is subjective, but it just doesn't attack my case or uphold yours... whatever your case happens to be."So what have we learned here?"We've learned that I need to be more selective about who takes up my debate challenges.