> No, I'm saying a much more basic, and widely accepted, undisputed even, thing: if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captu

> No, I'm saying a much more basic, and widely accepted, undisputed even, thing: if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better and can refer to it more readily than people whose language lacks the term (and can only describe the notion with different ad-hoc phrases). Firstly, do you have any evidence for the claim that, if a language has a specific term for a concept, speakers of that language understand that concept better than speakers of languages that require more than one term to describe the concept? I am genuinely interested in references to the studies you have read which demonstrate this. Secondly, you contradict yourself. The following statements are inconsistent: 1. "if language X has a specific term for a situation, then its speakers have captured that situation and understand it better" 2. "I'm not saying that having such a term or having a syntax structured in such a way, makes the Japanese to thing (sic) this or that way, or affects how they think." Either having a specific term for a concept allows better understanding of it (which obviously "affects how they think") or not.