I've never understood the core question of S-W. Is it that you can't have a word without having a concept for it? That seems like a no-brainer.
Neanderthals weren't able to build airplanes, and their language probably didn't have a word for airplane (presumably), but B wasn't the cause of A.
The vedic indians had flying vehicles in their literature and were also not able to build airplanes.
Most cultures that can build flying machines have one or more names for them.
I don't know what it would mean to have the concept for something without having a word (or a sentence) to describe it.
If the S-W claim is that 'it's more common for a concept to underly a word than for a word to exist for a concept', I don't agree with that either -- kids who read a lot will often know the part of speech for a word and its context but not much else.
Neanderthals weren't able to build airplanes, and their language probably didn't have a word for airplane (presumably), but B wasn't the cause of A.
The vedic indians had flying vehicles in their literature and were also not able to build airplanes.
Most cultures that can build flying machines have one or more names for them.
I don't know what it would mean to have the concept for something without having a word (or a sentence) to describe it.
If the S-W claim is that 'it's more common for a concept to underly a word than for a word to exist for a concept', I don't agree with that either -- kids who read a lot will often know the part of speech for a word and its context but not much else.