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

51–60 of 83 posts

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

#51

Post by thaumasiotes »

tshaddox wrote: post #4

I love this kind of thing. There’s plenty of neat little nuggets I have come across. Folk Etymology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology This has a good list of words that came from misconceptions about etymology. - “Crayfish”/“crawfish” mistakenly associated with “fish,” from Old French “crevice,” diminutive of their word for crab. - A really great one: “chaise lounge” from the French “chaise longue” meanin…

> The example given is “resurrection” from Latin via Old French, and “resurrect” formed much later directly from the English noun. It’s a little confusing because it seems like, at least in the “resurrect” case, it also follows the rules of Latin

Not really; if the verb were taken from Latin it would be "resurge", not "resurrect".

Compare "surge", which is not "surrect". "Translate" has a similar problem where if you took it from Latin it would be "transfer". Though in that case translate appears to have been a verb independent of transfer already in French.

> We erroneously included the Arabic word “al” (meaning “the”) in a bunch of nouns: algorithm

Algorithm is just someone's name. It seems no more erroneous to include the al- part of his name than it is to include the "van der" in the "van der Waals force"

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

#52

Post by mdp2021 »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #47
mdp2021 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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The idea that European languages or that a sizable portion of their vocabulary descended from Sanskrit is quite outdated.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.

Are you sure you are not referring to a theory of direct derivation - which would be quite an irrelevant matter?

Because evidence is that the Sanskrit terminology is massively present in this modern language and defines it; hence, awareness of Sanskrit is fundamental for awareness of the current language - which is the important thing. You could say that if they were unrelated, it would be the most extraordinary coincidence, and if their relation is not of «descende[nce]» that has much more relevance for historians than for language users, kind of mandated to know said language in depth.

In fact,

> pseudoscience

with all that scindere, do not forget the point which is that of understanding phenomena to better know them, activity more of needles than of scissors (don't overcut, the purpose is different).

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

#53

Post by mcv »

mdp2021 wrote: post #41
mcv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

Poetry and literature are immoral but pornography is fine? Is that the angle you're going with here?

I've got the feeling you're reading something completely different into this.

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

#54

Post by LinAGKar »

> PEN AND PENCIL

Interestingly, Swedish is closer to the Latin here. "Pensel" is a paintbrush, and both pen and pencil are called "penna". If necessary, they are distinguished as bläckpenna (ink pen) or kulspetspenna (ball point pen) and as blyertspenna, which comes from the German "bleierz", meaning "lead ore", due to a misconception that they contain lead.

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

#55

Post by marginalia_nu »

dustintrex wrote: post #31
moonchild wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 'faggot' is also a bundle of wood.

Yes, but this appears to be the origin of the pejorative: bundle of sticks -> an old woman collecting sticks -> a man who acts like an old woman -> homosexual.

This is quite a far fetched explanation.

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

#56

Post by jschulenklopper »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #50
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".

Exactly. Thus one might think that they are related, but actually they aren't really.

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

#57

Post by mdp2021 »

mcv wrote: post #53
mdp2021 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?…

Poetry and literature are immoral but pornography is fine? Is that the angle you're going with here? I've got the feeling you're reading something completely different into this.

No. Again, no. "Sensation" is when people are open to be hit as if physiologically from what something suggests them (hence, 'suggestion') - it is lack of control. It is when a court accused Lenny Bruce of pornology when he used swearwords in his stand-up comedy performances - the accused him of eliciting arousal. You are not supposed to feel deeply overwhelming perturbances in front of swearwords: that is not how it works in adults - and if did, it would signal a problem. That is "sensation" (more common today in 'sensationalism'). It is when the Camelot knights faint in front of the "Knights who say 'Ni'".

Poetry and literature use language with mastery for the elevation of people who, since they have keys to appreciate it, must be expert enough to manage it - which means, all which is transmitted is mediated, digested. The ball is caught and managed, not taken in the face with strong notification from the nose.

Sensation is typical e.g. of the worse """political""" (multiply the bunny quotes there) speech and is allowed by those who want to "feel" instead of "consider". This attitude for the consensual receiver could be at most a "private time" activity which is like approaching «pornography[, ]supposed to be an exception, a consensual experiment - not the standard of communication, on the opposite». On the side of the proposer, those who attempt inducing sensation, it is immoral: it is degrading and damaging. Those who encourage the listener to rely on panic (lower, uncontrolled) responses instead of reflection, are criminals.

Also, about your misreading of my: «or if not mature you want to expose them to the world of serious adulthood for their awareness», to which I then added «[rephrased: you do not hide adult behaviour: example must not be missed]», nearby a member mentioned the idea of "avoiding the term 'homonym' ['homophone', 'homologue' etc.] just to be sure": because somebody may faint?! The rest should resort to crippled language?!?! You use 'homonym' and 'homophone' and 'homologue' because that is the language, the correct one, and all correct use is a model: you do not hide that to the immature (which would make them remain so), there is nothing like «test[ing] the reader's maturity», and to stop using 'homonym' because somebody may faint would be one apex of the absurd (and a dictatorship of the fools).

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

#58

Post by [deleted] »

tremon wrote: post #48
stevula wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

[deleted]

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

#59

Post by amelius »

bryans wrote: post #8

> Where male goes back to Latin masculus, female comes through French femelle from Latin femella. The eventual overlap in pronunciation was accidental. Latin was masculus and femella, old French was masle/male and femelle/femaile, modern "English" is male and female. We didn't take one from Latin and one from French -- we took both from French. It doesn't make any sense that "male" was taken from "masculus" when "mas…

What happened to femina?

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

#60

Post by mcv »

LinAGKar wrote: post #54

> PEN AND PENCIL Interestingly, Swedish is closer to the Latin here. "Pensel" is a paintbrush, and both pen and pencil are called "penna". If necessary, they are distinguished as bläckpenna (ink pen) or kulspetspenna (ball point pen) and as blyertspenna, which comes from the German "bleierz", meaning "lead ore", due to a misconception that they contain lead.

In Dutch, paintbrush is "penseel". Pen is pen, pencil is "potlood". "Lood" refers to the lead in the pencil (which isn't lead at all, of course).
Post reply on HN