That makes global claims of this sort (claims about our language defining our world) untestable even in principle. It’s not a scientific hypothesis; it’s a rather strange (and in my view implausible) metaphysical claim that no one can ever confirm or refute. That is part of why linguists are so much less intrigued by global Sapir–Whorf-style claims

Such an idea might seem fascinating at first. But on closer inspection it loses any claim to be a scientific thesis.

Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis. It’s supposed to be a hypothesis about how language shapes or determines thought, but it isn’t really a hypothesis at all. It’s a vaguely defined cluster of very different claims.

Language is indeed changing and evolving all the time, but the process is extremely slow.

ratiocination

Claims about the grammar of a language can be wrong in three different ways: (i) because the language has changed, (ii) because prejudice has clouded perceptions of what the facts are, or (iii) because of analytical blunders that obscure the description of the facts.

linguist is interested in ascertaining what the actual grammatical constraints of the given language are.

I believe it’s the responsibility of linguists not to condemn what they see and hear but to frame their descriptions of English (or whatever language) in a way that captures the regularities that its fluent speakers typically employ when structuring their sentences.

low linguistic self-esteem is a sad consequence of unsuccessful teaching about language.