Following this blog post by Edwin I've had these thoughts.

I am familiar with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (the nature of a persons language influences that persons thoughts and behaviour),  but I think that it is a rather restrictive hypothesis, especially when seen in "cross-over language situations" (bi-language) and "emergent languages" such as folksonomological reifications.

I'm very often observing new (mostly) English words being adopted within my mother tongue, and there it seems like new words appear because somebody is thinking in a certain way and then needs a language shift. So effectively a symmetric Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is observed where thoughts and behaviour is influencing language (as well as the other way around)

It would be a very interesting study to look at the different approaches to foreign word usage in the Nordic countries!. Iceland and Faroe Icelands simply doesn't allow foreign words in their languages, hence they create new words. Norway and Sweden allow then but change the spelling. Denmark adopts them as spelled, but perhaps using a sligthly different pronoucination. How does this change their behaviour, if at all?

Effectively folksonomies is "emergent language" creation, as fluent patterns of symbols are attached to meaning by the intentional behaviour of users. In this situation I believe that it is a opposite Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that is working where behaiour and thought changes the "language". Perhaps this is the case because folksonomies aren't "human language" but a symbolic link language", which provides further meaning to the normal thoughts of humans (and by use of folksonomological reification also computers.)

Hmn – my head hurt, I'm a computer scientist and should think this way. Perhaps I should program a little bit before writing a book :o)