The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax Returns

One of my favourite linguists is Geoffrey Pullum, who often writes for the wonderful Language Log. The first piece I read by him (before there was a Language Log, or even much of a World Wide Web) was “The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax”, which traces the evolution of the linguistic urban legend of Eskimos (now more properly known as Inuit, of course) having oodles of words for snow. I recently noticed the highest snow-word-count yet in Sex and the City, where Carrie comments that Eskimos have a hundred words for snow. Of course, that could be the scriptwriter's comment on Carrie's general ditziness, but it's amazing how such absurd statements can slip under the radar. This must be the fourth time I've seen that episode (my wife and I are SATC addicts) and the first time I noticed it, just like I recently read about fifty exam essays on China's One Child Policy before I noticed that half of them were saying that China contains “a third of the world's population.” (To be fair to our students, this is because the article they were supposed to be commenting on contained this fallacy.) It just kind of slides in through your ears inconspicuously. “China has a third of the world's population.” “Eskimos have a hundred words for snow.” “Russian has no word for freedom.” That last was, if I remember rightly, from Ronald Reagan, and most people bought it. Well, most Republicans, anyway.

The latest dubious statistic to catch my gaze is “The Greeks had over 30 different types of love they recognize.” Since I don't speak Classical Greek, I can't be sure, but come on, thirty? In actual everyday conversation, not some Kama Sutra-style taxonomy? Wouldn't it have been confusing for them? “Um, Aristides, there's something I have to ask you: is what you feel for me the-love-that-you-might-feel-for-a-cousin-you-feel-inappropriately-sexually-attracted-to? Because if that's so, we've got a problem, because what I feel is more like the-love-you-feel-for-someone-who-looks-good-on-paper-but-doesn't-quite-ring-your-bell.” Anyway, comments by Classics scholars are welcome.