Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

theweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#41

Post by mdp2021 »

mcv wrote: post #35
mdp2021 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trigger an immune response, which is not something you generally want to do to your readers In general, you expect readers not live «immune response[s]». It is called "sensation", and you either expect readers to be mature and having learnt to manage it as much as they learnt all other physiological and emotional and intellectual control, or if not mature you want to expose them to the world of serious adulthood fo…

Depending on what you're writing, sensation might well be the entire purpose of the writing. So words that trigger the wrong sensation should absolutely be avoided, and not used to test the reader's maturity or anything like that. However, these sensations are extremely cultural. As a non-American, it's funny to see Americans trying to impose their cultural sensitivities on other countries and cultures. Like criticis…

> Depending on what you're writing, sensation might well be the entire purpose of the writing

That would be immoral... Pornography is supposed to be an exception, a consensual experiment - not the standard of communication, on the opposite. When you deliberately try to make the reader lose control (e.g. for manipulation, or paternalistic trickery), that IS immoral.

> So words that trigger the wrong sensation

In whom? What makes "sensation" legitimate? How can you assume a reader will get that "sensation" - which, also, is not supposed to have in the first place? You say it yourself: «...trying to impose their cultural sensitivities on other countries and cultures...». There seems to be an attempt to create a "standard demotic" - but it remains demotic, and with extremely weak foundations without grounds for universality.

> not used to test the reader's maturity

No no no no no no no no - that was never meant (why should one do that? That is perverse, and something akin was the whole point). What was expressed is that you do not hide adulthood to children - otherwise, they will remain children.

Edit:

and by the way,

> However, these sensations are extremely cultural

Also the use of sensational language is "cultural", localized in some areas: you can see that it is found more frequently in some territories. It remains objectively immoral to attempt speaking to the visceral instead of the intellect. It is like tapping one's arm to steal from him. You communicate to provide further awareness, not to reduce it; to provide further abilities, not to lower them. If you did the latter, you'd be a criminal.

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#42

Post by LudwigNagasena »

mdp2021 wrote: post #38
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if 'masculus' comes from (Sanskrit) 'marya' But it doesn't.

What is the most probable root of 'mas' then?

It may come from the same Proto-Indo-European root *méryos that became 'marya' in Sanskrit. But whatever it is, a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely.

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#43

Post by mdp2021 »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #42
mdp2021 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the most probable root of 'mas' then?

It may come from the same Proto-Indo-European root *méryos that became 'marya' in Sanskrit. But whatever it is, a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely.

> a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely

In which sense? Most of the content of post-Latin languages seems to be post-Sanskrit. Not necessarily as a direct derivation, but as a full appearance: you normally can see the Sanskrit dropped into Greek dropped into Latin (whatever the path, descendants or siblings).

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#44

Post by mdp2021 »

dmurray wrote: post #39
mdp2021 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are anagrams Being an anagram has no value: not only switching the order of sounds is not a mechanism in the evolution of terms (at least, I cannot think of a single example), but more relevantly the sounds do not overlap with their symbols - terms are in general transliterations (so the "character" has little importance, being a mostly referencing simplification).

> switching the order of sounds is not a mechanism in the evolution of terms (at least, I cannot think of a single example), This is an extremely common way for pronunciation to evolve, usually known as metathesis. An example familiar to most Americans is "ax" for "ask" heard in certain dialects. For a hundred more examples, see the Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_(linguistics)

Right, and I read that

> some even use [metathesis] as a regular part of their grammar, such as Hebrew and Fur

, but I wonder how much that is part of the evolution of the language /in use/, and how much that mechanism involves language itself. So, for example, the Spanish may use 'palabra' ex 'parabola', with the seal of approval of the philologist as a codified expression, but that remains a "familiar" (small circle, irregardless if enormous) terminology implying a wink: "you used a metathesis", we forgive it but know it.

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#45

Post by mdp2021 »

dustintrex wrote: post #32
plibither8 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment is still available [0], just "dead", so it doesn't show up on unless the user has enabled "show dead comments" on their profile page. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30584622

Seems to be un-deaded now, praise the mods! And on closer inspection there was one naughty word in there, although technically it's a homonym that happens to have the same spelling. (And "homonym" itself is probably best avoided.)

> And "homonym" itself is probably best avoided

I really, really, with all the atoms in this world, hope you are joking.

Would you want to live in that world?

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#46

Post by Mordisquitos »

Not long ago I accidentally found out about a pair of these words in Spanish:

1. pelo (=hair)

2. peluca (=wig) and its derivatives peluquero, peluquería (=hairdresser, hairdresser's).

The word pelo comes from the Latin pillus, but peluca came from the French perruque, and this from the Lombard parruca of unknown origin [0]. As Spanish used an "L" in the word for hair, it contaminated the imported perruque due to its proximity in meaning.

For contrast, the words for wig and hairdresser('s) in standard Catalan (perruca, perruquer, perruqueria) did not cross over with the word hair (pèl) and kept their original "R".

[0] https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/parrucca

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#47

Post by LudwigNagasena »

mdp2021 wrote: post #43
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may come from the same Proto-Indo-European root *méryos that became 'marya' in Sanskrit. But whatever it is, a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely.

> a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely In which sense? Most of the content of post-Latin languages seems to be post-Sanskrit. Not necessarily as a direct derivation, but as a full appearance: you normally can see the Sanskrit dropped into Greek dropped into Latin (whatever the path, descendants or siblings).

The idea that European languages or that a sizable portion of their vocabulary descended from Sanskrit is quite outdated. It was understandable that some people in 18th century could hold such views because they didn’t know better, in 19th century it wasn’t held by most if not all scholars, in 20th century it was disproved beyond reasonable doubt, in 21st century it can only be regarded as pseudoscience.

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#48

Post by tremon »

stevula wrote: post #10
jschulenklopper wrote: post #9

My personal discovery: “testament” and “statement”. They are anagrams, and obviously have some semantic connection - “this is what I’d like to happen” vs. “this is my opinion on a topic”. But no shared root (known to me) or other relation.

Knowing that -ment is a suffix, what would lead one to think the roots “state-“ and “testa-“ might be related?

They are, if you dig far enough. The first is from the latin status (state, position) [1], the result of the verb stare (to stand), from the proto-indo-european root sta/ste. The latter is from the latin testis (witness, c.f. testimony) [2] which deconstructs into ters (third) and -stis (the act of stare), meaning quite literally "a third party standing by".

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/state

[2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testis#Latin

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#49

Post by genericacct »

moonchild wrote: post #17
dustintrex wrote: post #6

An unmentioned subcategory is words that that sound or look like taboo words, but are actually unrelated: "niggardly", "Gaylord", "fag" as in cigarette (from "fag end", unrelated to "faggot"), etc.

A 'faggot' is also a bundle of wood.

No post body was provided.

Re: Words that seem related but aren't (2015)

#50

Post by thaumasiotes »

jschulenklopper wrote: post #9

My personal discovery: “testament” and “statement”. They are anagrams, and obviously have some semantic connection - “this is what I’d like to happen” vs. “this is my opinion on a topic”. But no shared root (known to me) or other relation.

The semantic connection is as much of a coincidence as the fact that they're anagrams. Testament is from a Latin word meaning "witness"; statement is from a word meaning "stand" or "standing".
Post reply on HN