This question is particularly aimed at the linguists among us, but don't let that stop anyone else from commenting (as if I could stop y'all)

In another forum the question of the number of words for snow in Eskimo languages has raised its perennial head.

For those of you unfamiliar with the controversy it centers around the question of whether Eskimo languages really do have a significantly larger number of words for snow and ice than do languages of people living in climates less blessed with the substance. This has apparently been a piece of received knowledge for many years until a gentleman name of Geoffrey K. Pullum wrote an essay pooh-poohing the idea.

Mark Halpern, occasional writer for the Vocabula Review (http://www.vocabula.com/VRFEB02Halpern.htm), has written an essay counterpooh-poohing the Pullum thesis and in doing so mentions the fact that Eskimo languages are polysynthetic. (Googling <polysynthetic language> yields a wealth of info on polysynthetic languages; you can pick your level)

In the Vocabula Review Forum (from whence hev, BTW) the point was raised that the great number of words for snow in Eskimo languages was only half of the initial observation; the other half was that Eskimo languages had no word for snow in general. My question is whether the fact that Eskimo languages are polysynthetic assures us that they would have no words for anything in general.