
This book confronts the thorny question of how and whether culture shapes language and language, culture. Linguistics has long shied away from claiming any link between a language and the culture of its speakers: too much simplistic (even bigoted) chatter about the romance of Italian and the goose-stepping orderliness of German has made serious thinkers wary of the entire subject. But now, acclaimed linguist Guy Deutscher has dared to reopen the issue. Can culture influence languageand vice versa? Can different languages lead their speakers to different thoughts? Could our experience of the world depend on whether our language has a word for "blue"? Challenging the consensus that the fundaments of language are hard-wired in our genes and thus universal, Deutscher argues that the answer to all these questions isyes. In thrilling fashion, he takes us from Homer to Darwin, from Yale to the Amazon, from how to name the rainbow to why Russian water -- a "she" -- becomes a "he" once you dip a tea bag into her, demonstrating that language does in fact reflect culture in ways that are anything but trivial. Audacious, delightful, and field-changing, Through the Language Glass is a classic of intellectual discovery. - Publisher.
Guy Deutscher’s “Through the Language Glass” is a very readable history of linguistic relativism, including the long history of this experiment. It even has some colour plates to illustrate. Recommended.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/412264/through-the-language-...
The whole idea that the Ancient Greeks were maybe colour blind came up due to Homer's epics containing descriptions such as "the wine-dark sea" while never really using a specific term for blue (that would be found in later Greek). Nowadays we understand this to mean that colour description in Homeric times was more focused on light vs. dark than on exact hues.
There have been at least some studies showing measurable, though small, effects of this on processing speed, e.g. Russians being slightly faster at distinguishing different shades of blue than English speakers: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0701644104
In my opinion this is consistent with the general idea that the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is bunk, but some weak effects of language patterns influencing habitual thought can be found.
When you write
> But claims like that are made as part of the everything-is-relative-and-culturally-determined movement.
it sounds like you're trying to engage in some cultural war thing that I will stay out of, but in general it's probably better to look at the actual data instead of dealing in sweeping generalisations.