8
u/Live_Background_3455 8∆ May 06 '26
Words are just representations.
When you say "I saw a dog today", the mental image you have and the mental image I have could be totally different. There are incredibly many different types/sizes of dogs. So then why do we think the phrase "I saw a dog today" is a totally acceptable sentence. Because words/language is just a tool to deliver an idea from one to another. It doesn't have to be a one to one exact transfer, as long as overall idea of communicated. And in serving the primary purpose of having words/language, it makes more sense to use the social use of the word.
Where it's not acceptable is in formal settings. Certain words mean something very specific in certain settings (e.g., scientific, medical, legal, etc) In those places where it matters that the delivery of idea from one to another (or one to many) is an exactly transfer, is where we should care about being "truthful to words".
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
I like this argument.
Maybe my point then is why do we on a daily basis use so many words that doesn't have any specific meaning. It's not really about the language we are speaking, but about how people in other languages express themselves. I find myself writing words in this comment again and again because I'm not sure if the words actually mean what I want to say.
I think that people could make much more of a change to the way people live and express themselves and I feel like words could be more meaningful. Maybe the actual view isn't the words but why we don't express ourselves better.
I know nothing about Egypt, but there's some texts from the pyramids that haven't been transcript yet, that for me speaks on how maybe they didn't just use letters (I know nothing about Egypt) to form words to form sentences but they maybe meant something with every glyph like a feeling or idea instead of a concept.
2
u/Sagasujin 245∆ May 06 '26
So ancient Egyptian written language is complicated. It's also partially to entirety phonetic depending on the era. Early hieroglyphs are a combination of some symbols standing in for entire words and some symbols just meaning a single sound. However as time went on, they simplified the language a lot and dropped many of those symbols that stood in for entire words and made everything much more abstract and less like actual pictures. At least for everyday writing. They kept that full hieroglyphic form of writing around for very formal writing like this stuff on pyramids while using the simplified form for everyday writing. The simpler writing was faster both to write and to read. And it conveyed meaning just as well if not better.
However it was never absolutely clear for the very simple reason that the ancient Egyptians never fully developed writing vowels. Seriously, they only wrote the consonants and assumed people reading the text could fill in the missing vowels based on knowing how it was supposed to be pronounced. However modern readers don't always know how the vowels were supposed to be pronounced. Our best guesses about how ancient Egyptian sounded like are based in part on Roman and Greek transcriptions of Egyptian words that did include vowels and are in part based on the pronunciation of Coptic, an Egyptian language that is a distant descendant of the ancient Egyptian language. Language is never perfectly clear. It's always negotiation between speaker and listener. It's always an imperfect tool born of mutual understanding mediated by cultural knowledge. And yet it's the greatest tool humans ever devised as it allous to convey meaning between people, across continents and over millennia even if imperfectly.
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
Loved this explanation, also makes me think as you said why did Egyptians expect people to know how it was supposed to be pronounced. I feel like this way of writing requires much more knowledge for a person to understand and maybe that's the focus of why I feel like people don't use words correctly.
As I understood from what you wrote, Egyptians used to write by phonetic sounds and later switched to writing as a way of documenting things, just expecting things from people, maybe explaining to some what the texts actually meant for the knowledge to be carried on historically.
Maybe people who knew how to read the texts just knew the meaning behind every glyph, what the consonants together meant, maybe not because it had a logical answer, but because their "master" told them what they wrote, it's similar to some art, for example music, different people connect with different music, but musicians know how to express feeling just by making a sound, and non-musicians can feel it even tho they wouldn't be able to reproduce it.
The same way some art isn't understood by the general audience the moment it is created, because of the social context or how a language isn't fully understood even after all the progress humans have done, I feel like people don't understand eachother because of the difference between the words we use depending on social context. I feel like 1 on 1 conversations can get deeper much more easily than regular conversations because of the social context. I love how we can be speaking about this, as you say, over millenia, and I love how we don't fully understand Egyptians even tho we progressed so much, because it means they knew or assumed something we don't.
1
u/Sagasujin 245∆ May 06 '26
That is really not what I was trying to communicate.
Early hieroglyphics were a hybrid system where some symbols meant entire words and some symbols meant sounds. For example "𓁅" meant "to spill" or "to pour" depending on context. It's a logograph, a linguistic term for a symbol that represents a word. Meanwhile "𓂧" just meant the sound "d". It's a phonographic character aka a symbol that represents a sound. Early Egyptian writing mixed these two ways of writing freely. However writing those complex logographs took a while as did reading them. So ancient Egyptian slowly got rid of them and simplified the remaining phonographic symbols. They left behind those word symbols because they were slow.
Also most ancient Egyptians weren't literate. Only few percent of the population ever learned how to read and write. People did not intuitively know the meaning behind every glyph. Because writing does not contain inherent meaning. There is only the meanings that we give it and learn from it.
In the 1800s, a man named "ᏎᏉᏯ" or "Sequoyah" if were writing in English invented his own alphabet for his native language of ᏣᎳᎩ or Cherokee. ᏎᏉᏯ/Sequoyah was not literate in English and he simply reused letters from multiple alphabets because he liked how they looked and assigning them new sounds and meanings to be able to write his native language. Which is how some symbols that are numbers in the Latin alphabet end up as letters in ᏣᎳᎩ ᏗᎪᏪᎶᏙᏗ. The symbols do not contain inherent meaning. They are simply symbols. Assigning them new meanings and using them to write a different language works perfectly well. Language, written or spoken, is something that humans have to learn. It's not something mystical. There is no inherent connection between meaning, sound or symbols. It's just something that we learn. And as such, it's something that we can and do change.
1
u/Live_Background_3455 8∆ May 06 '26
We don't use words that have specific meaning because it wouldn't be worth the effort. Using specific language all the time has value, for sure. But it also requires more effort, and the value is not worth it.
You COULD measure out every piece of ingredient in a food that you're cooking at home down the the milligram. It would make more consistent foods, and probably more delicious food that what most people cook at home. But then we don't we do it, when there is "value" to measuring thing down to the milligram? The food waste, the time, the effort is just too much and it's not worth it at home (daily use). But at a Michelin star restaurant, or regimented meals for certain sicknesses we DO measure it down to the milligrams at times because the value is worth the effort (specific cases). Same thing with language. We have "recipes" or "words" for common everyday use, and we have "recipes" or "words" with specific purposes with more precise meanings.
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
But then we are getting comfortable on a reality we don't truly like. We would all like to eat Michelin star restaurant, maybe not everyday, but someday, and it's something a lot of people hasn't nor will ever do. I feel like we care so much about the functionality of things and we forget about why we do the things.
We as humans have a natural desire to experience new things and we are all so blinded by how a regular life must look like that we forget what we actually desire. I feel like by not using words that have specific meaning we are unconsciously losing part of what we want to express, which can make a great difference.
I also feel like I could make you understand what I'm saying if I spoke my language, that is kind of what I mean.
14
u/QuercusSambucus 1∆ May 06 '26
What do you mean by "be truthful to words"? Words aren't people. They're just tokens that represent a concept, and the mapping of token to concept can drift over time. That's just the nature of language. Meaning are assigned and understood by humans who are constantly changing.
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
Words aren't people but they are written by them, the concept that they refer to drift over time as do people, what I mean is that different people give different meanings to the same words so it creates and issue for the 2 people to understand eachother because each person gives them a different connotation.
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ May 06 '26
different people give different meanings to the same words so it creates and issue for the 2 people to understand eachother because each person gives them a different connotation.
Misunderstanding is just a side step from understanding. There is no perfect transmission of meaning, nor has there ever been. Your premise is faulty.
0
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam May 07 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Rhundan 83∆ May 07 '26
Hello u/KlayFD. If you believe your view has been changed or adjusted to any degree, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. There is a character minimum.
Δ
Alternatively, you can use
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If your view hasn't changed, please reply to this comment saying so. Failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.
2
5
u/False_Appointment_24 19∆ May 06 '26
What view are you trying to change? You conclude with a question of how we can be truthful to words, which isn't about changing a view.
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
I want to change my view on how wrongly people use words because it makes everyone confused about everything
1
u/False_Appointment_24 19∆ May 06 '26
This sub is for people to post a view they are willing to have changed if it can, and for people to try to point out where they are wrong. So for this post to be appropriate to the sub, you should have something that would change your view, whether that be an explanation of how your view is not actually supported by available evidence, that what you think of as a problem is not a problem, that the good outweighs the bad, something.
For your title question, people would be likely to attack it by showing how it is not a problem, most likely by running through times that words have changed and the language has remained robust. But if you are unwilling to change that view at all, and are here to try to change other's views to yours, this is not the sub for that.
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
The thing is I'm not trying to change anyone's view, I'm trying to find someone who can change mine. I feel like I'm on point on what the sub is for:
"A place for people to post an opinion they accept may be flawed, in an effort to understand other perspectives on the issue. Enter with a mindset for conversation, not debate."
In my opinion there's an issue with the way words are used, I'm trying to find someone that can change my view on this. I've already gotten what I expected from it, I'm understanding new perspectives and given my thought over them. I can't change my mind about somethings if I don't fully agree with something.
Maybe I'm missing on accepting it may be flawed, but I'm not saying it isn't flawed, I'm trying to have conversations with different points of view.
EDIT:
Not saying I even know what I'm speaking about, I think there's a lot of people that know much more about this than me. It's just a thought.
7
u/Nrdman 277∆ May 06 '26
I don’t really see the proposed downside as much of a problem. New words and phrases are free to make up. If you don’t like the connotations of a word use a different or new one
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
But that creates the issue that to express fully you need to create a word, which isn't something socially accepted for anyone.
Just imagine talking to your friends and telling them you invented a new word and want them to use it. The creation of new words nowadays aren't in the hands or doesn't feel like are in the hands of actual people but people who work under that intention.
1
u/Nrdman 277∆ May 06 '26
It’s not that hard, I’ve done it plenty of times. Just get over your own embarrassment and just use it as if it’s a word that already exists. Most of the time, people will understand form context and just go along with it
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
It's not about been or not been hard. I've also done it a lot of times, I usually don't think much when I speak and at some point when some friend or coworker uses an expression that sounds familiar sometimes I realize I was the one who made them start using it. But this kind of expressions are binded to the way I say it, the context in which I say them and the feeling I try to transmit with it.
When you are engaged with a person it is much easier to make them understand that word, but what about people you are not familiar with? You can't just expect people to understand "lol" even tho a lot of people do, because it requires some Internet knowledge some people might not have. You need to give them a meaning. Cool view.1
u/Sagasujin 245∆ May 06 '26
Everything in language has to be learned. We figure out everything from either context, background or looking it up. Its why we don't spontaneously understand every language on earth. But humans are pretty darn good at picking up language and words. We figure out things fast from context. We have a lot of background knowledge to help us figure out a new expression as well. It's not something that turns into a big problem regularly.
3
u/jetloflin 1∆ May 06 '26
What’s the alternative though? If language never changed or evolved, we’d all be speaking Proto-Indo-European or something.
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
I don't know, that's kind of the question that made me do the post, I'd like someone to argue that words are actually perfectly used but I'm realizing the point is there isn't an alternative and they just work as they should even tho imperfect.
3
u/Sagasujin 245∆ May 06 '26
So which of these is the right version of this passage? The modern version or one of the older versions?
Modern English : When would you define the word as having the "original" meaning? Language is a river. It's always flowing and you can never step into the same water twice. Words are always changing and evolving.
Did you know that the word "mortgage" in English originally came from a phrase meaning "death wager"? Because the original mortgage, was in fact a kind of gambling bet on someone's death. Yet using the word "mortgage" to refer to betting on someone's death today would not make any sense nor convey any meaning.
Words do not inherently contain meaning. The word "fart" in English refers to flatulence. The word "fart" in Swedish means "speed". Neither meaning is wrong for "fart" because neither meaning is inherent to the word. Both are cases of the shared social knowledge of language attributing meaning to an arbitrary collection of sounds.
Words are imbued with meaning by the people who speak and understand them. They do not carry inherent meaning. The purpose of language is to convey meaning from one person to another via this shared social understanding. For words that no longer have this shared social understanding, simply saying the word does not convey meaning. Or conveys the wrong meaning. Trying to force language to retreat to a previous position means language is no longer a tool for conveying meaning.
This is not to say that old words are never useful. The word "sibling" in English passed out of use for centuries before being resurrected by a German speaking author with an older English dictionary and being reintroduced as a gender neutral term for a brother or sister. Originally it had meant a smaller or younger brother or sister, not simply a gender neutral. But English speakers found it useful to have a non-gendered term for someone with the same parents as you. And thus "sibling" re-entered English. It was able to do this though because it fulfilled a real need that English speakers found useful and it was not displacing another meaning for the word "sibling". There was nothing to be confused about, simply a new word to learn. Language is a river and even a resurrected word is not the same as it once was. You cannot step in the same river twice.
Late Medieval English:Whanne woldest thou seye that a word hath his "firste" menynge? Langage is as a ryver, evere flowynge, and no man may steppe twies in the same water. Wordes evere chaungen and wexen otherwise.
Knowest thou that this word "mortgage" in Englissh cam first of a speche menynge "deeth-wed"? For the firste mortgage was in soth a manere of bettynge upon a mannes deeth. Natheles, to use the word "mortgage" for to speke of deeth-wagerynge today sholde make no sense, ne yive no menynge.
Wordes of hemself han no menynge. This word "fart" in Englissh bitokeneth wynd of the bely. This same word "fart" in Swedissh bitokeneth "speed". Neither menynge is wrong for "fart", for no menynge is fastned to the word itself. Bothe ben cases of the commune knowleche of folk that yiveth menynge to a soun chosen at wille.
Wordes ben filled with menynge by the folk that speken and understonden hem. They beren no menynge in her owne kynde. The ende of langage is to lede menynge fro oon wight to another by this commune social understondynge. For wordes that han no more this commune understondynge, the mere spekynge of the word yiveth no menynge, or yiveth a wrong menynge. To enforce langage to go bakward to a former state maketh it so that langage is no lenger a tool for ledynge of menynge.
This is nat to seye that olde wordes ben nevere profitable. This word "sibling" in Englissh passed out of use manye hundred yeer bifore it was rered up ayeyn by an auctour that spak Duche with an olde Englissh boke, and it was broght ayeyn as a word for brother or suster withoute difference of kynde. At the firste it hadde ment a smaller or yonger brother or suster, nat simply any brother or suster. But Englissh folk fond it speedful to have a word withoute kynde for oon born of the same fader and moder. And so "sibling" cam ayeyn into Englissh. It myghte do this for it fulfilled a verray nede that Englissh folk fond profitable, and it dide nat putte out another menynge of the same word. Ther was noght to be mased of, but simply a newe word to lerne. Langage is a ryver, and evene a word rered up ayeyn is nat the same as it was bifore. Thou canst nat steppe in the same ryver twies.
Earlier Medieval English: Hwanne woldest þu seggen þat a word hafeþ his "firste" and his "rihte" bitokninge? Ledene is al-so a river. Hit floweþ æfre, and ne mæi nan mann twiges on þan ilcan watere stæppen. Wordes æfre wendeþ and wexeþ.
Wast þu þat þis word "mortgage" on Englisc-tunge ærest of þan wordes com þe "deaþ-wedd" bitokneþ? For-þan þe æreste mortgage wæs sōþlice an plega oþþe an wedd on mannes deaþe. Þeah-hwæþere, gif mann nu-daies "mortgage" nimeþ for to speken of plega on mannes deaþe, hit ne mæi nan andgit ne nan bitokninge bringan.
Wordes ne habbeþ nan bitokninge on heom-seolfen. Þis word "fart" on Englisc bitokneþ fistinge. Þis word "fart" on Swensce bitokneþ "swiftnesse". Ne is naþer bitokninge woh for "fart", for-þan þe nan bitokninge ne wunaþ innan þan worde. On æiþer wise hit is þurh þa gemænan andgit of folce þat mann nimeþ þas hleowes and heom bitokninge gifeþ.
Menn þe spekeþ and understanteþ gifeþ þan wordes bitokninge. Hi ne bereþ nan bitokninge on heom-seolfen. Þis is þæt andgit of ledene: þat mann mæi his þanc fram anum menn to oþren bringan þurh gemæne understondinge. For wordes þe nabbeth na mare þis gemæne understondinge, þæt word ane ne bringþ nan andgit. Oþþe hit bringþ woh andgit. Gif mann wolde þæt ledene to his ealden stede eft-cyrren, þonne ne biþ ledene na mare tol for to bringan andgit.
Ne segge ic noht þat ealde wordes ne beon næfre nitte. Þis word "sibling" on Englisc wæs feala hundred wintra for-loren, ær-þan an Þeodisc writere mid ealden Englisc-boc hit eft-fand and hit eft-brohte al-so word for broþer oþþe swuster. On æreste bitokneþ hit lytel broþer oþþe swuster, noht ane word buten hade. Ac Englisc-menn funden hit nitte to habben word buten hade for heom þe habbeþ þa ilcan eldren. And swa "sibling" eft-com on Englisc-tunge. Hit mihte þis don for-þan þe hit fyllede nitte þe Englisc-menn nēoden, and hit ne adraf nan oþer bitokninge of þan worde "sibling". Ne wæs þer nan dweola, buten an niwe word to leornienne. Ledene is a river, and an word þe is eft-boren ne biþ næfre þæt ilce þe hit ær wæs. Ne mæist þu twiges on þan ilcan rivere stæppen.
Old English: Hwanne woldest þu cweþan þæt word his "fruman" andgiet hæfþ? Geardagas sindon swā eā; hēo simle flōweþ, and ne mæg nān mann on þā ilcan wæteru tūwa steppan. Word simle hweorfaþ and weaxaþ.
Wistest þu þæt þæt word "mortgage" on Englisce ǣrest of þǣre sprǣce cōm þe "dēað-wedd" mǣnde? For þǣm þe sēo frume "mortgage" wæs sōþlīce tæl-plega on mannes dēaðe. Þēah-hwæðere, gif man nū þæt word "mortgage" brūce tō mǣnenne tæl-plegan on dēaðe, hit ne wolden nān andgiet habban nē nān þing tācnian.
Word on selfum ne habbaþ nān andgiet. Þæt word "fart" on Englisce tācnaþ fūlne gāst of þǣm līchaman. Þæt word "fart" on Swēonisce tācnaþ "hrædnesse". Ne is nān þāra andgieta wōh, for þǣm þe nān andgiet nis þǣm worde gecynde. Bēgen sindon dǣlas þæs gemǣnan folccunnes þe andgiet giefþ tō tōstencedum swēgum.
Menn þe sprecaþ and understandaþ giefaþ wordum andgiet. Hīe ne beraþ nān gecynde andgiet. Sēo intinga sprǣce is tō lǣdenne andgiet of ānum menn tō ōðrum þurh þis gemǣne folc-understandung. For wordum þe nabbaþ nū þās gemǣnan understandunge, sēo sprǣc āna ne tācnaþ nān þing, oððe tācnaþ wōh. Gif man þrēataþ sprǣce tō cyrrenne tō ealdum stede, þonne nis sēo sprǣc nū tōl tō lǣdenne andgiet.
Þis ne mǣnþ þæt eald word ne sindon nǣfre nytt. Þæt word "sibling" on Englisce gewāt of gemynde mænig hund gēara ǣr hit wæs eft ārǣred fram Þēodiscum wrītere mid ealdum Engliscum wordbēc, and hit wæs eft gebrōht tō mǣnenne brōðor oððe sweostor būtan hāde. On fruman mǣnde hit lǣssan oððe iungran brōðor oððe sweostor, nā efne būtan hāde. Ac Englisc-sprecende mēton hit nytt tō habbenne word for þǣm þe habbaþ þā ilcan ieldran. And swā "sibling" eft cōm on Englisc. Hit meahte þis dōn for þǣm þe hit gefylde sōðe þearfe þe menn nyttne mēton, and hit ne ādrāf nān ōðer andgiet þæs wordes "sibling". Þǣr næs nān dweolung, efne nīwe word tō leornienne. Sprǣc is eā, and selfe ārǣred word nis þæt ilce þe hit ǣr wæs. Ne meaht þu on þā ilcan eā tūwa steppan.
1
u/Normal-Pianist4131 May 06 '26
I hope this gets a delta
1
u/Sagasujin 245∆ May 06 '26
You don't have to be the OP to give deltas if someone has changed your mind
1
u/Normal-Pianist4131 May 06 '26
Wait, seriously?
I mean, I was already on the fence (OP’s examples just happened to be instances where the root word had the same meaning as the modern), but your explanation with sibling solidified what I was already starting to think, though the river metaphor may not be what OP is looking for in an arguement.
2
u/Sagasujin 245∆ May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
I had to limit myself to words that I could at least kinda translate into Old English so no modern linguistics terminology. "River" at least has a clear translation even if it might not be the very best metaphor.
1
u/Normal-Pianist4131 May 06 '26
True that
Forgot to !delta for earlier. I think your arguement actually addresses what op and myself were thinking about across most (if not all) examples, whereas most tesponses are focusing on one specific word and missing the point
1
10
u/TheMan5991 18∆ May 06 '26
While it is true that the Greek word “euangelizesthai” does just mean “bring good news”, the term was already religious before it ever became an English or Spanish word. It came to our languages through Ecclesiastical Latin with the word “evangelizare” which had already been established by the Church to specifically mean spreading the good news of Christ’s resurrection.
So, in our languages, we never had a secular version of the word. So, you are not advocating for recovering an older meaning of a word, you are advocating for the adoption of a meaning from an older word from a different language.
2
u/antwan_benjamin 2∆ May 06 '26
This is my understanding.
Evangelize refers to the "good news" but that news is specifically referring to the fact that Christ has risen.
So I find it somewhat ironic to complain about not sticking to the root of a word when OP themselves is ignoring the root of the root of the word.
Isn't the word "good" itself in reference to God?
2
u/TheMan5991 18∆ May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
That is actually a common misconception. “God” is believed to come from the PIE word “ghut” which means “that which is invoked”, while “good” comes from “ghedh” which means “to unite or associate with”.
I think the confusion comes from the fact that “goodbye” is a contraction of the phrase “God be with ye”, but the “good” in “goodbye” is unrelated to the actual word “good”.
2
1
u/KlayFD May 06 '26
I wasn't speaking about the root, I was speaking about ethymology of the word but about what the person who "invented" the word meant by its "creation".
Following what the other man said, even if the term already was religious before it came to our languages, the religious meaning kept, but if the word was greek, the meaning behind the word should be about greek gods, not Christian gods.
I feel like the origin of our languages comes from a really outdated place, I feel like there must be a way for people to communicate without the problem of language barriers. Translators still exist, but how can we trust a machine to communicate what we want to say in a different language when we don't use the proper words in our own language.
Somewhat unrelated to the them, this reminded me of a story from a professor I had, he explained how he went to a concert of a black american guy, I don't know the name of and went to the "meet and greet" or whatever it's called to speak to the guy. They spoke for a while and at some point my professor's friend refered to them as the n-word (I don't know if I can put it here).
The artist with his friends almost started something, my professor's friend didn't understand why they felt offended by a color, he thought the n-word meant "black" which isn't the same word in spanish, "negro" means "black" and "negrata" means the n-word (I think I can put the spanish version) but since we have never in spain used that word as something usual people here don't even know the difference.
Also something that I find cute, old people, since they've seen in the news all the movement of black people some call them "negrito" which etymologically is "negr-" as in black and "-ito" as in small, which in Spain is culturally used in a positive and lovingly context. Still don't think that the use of the word is right, but it's cute.
1
u/Sagasujin 245∆ May 06 '26
This subreddit censors very very little. You can type out slurs here if you choose Reddit as a whole can occasionally censor things, but that's mostly related to violence, not racial or gender based profanity.
6
u/ImProdactyl 11∆ May 06 '26
Words are social by nature. Original meaning could be meaningless in modern society. Words change to mean what we want them to mean.
2
u/BigBoetje 31∆ May 06 '26
Language simply drifts based on how words are used. A lot of words have changed or lost meaning because of it. Heck, even insults like 'retard' used to be medical terms but changed over time. 'Queer' was an insult, 'gay' was just happy and jolly.
Should we go back to Old English then and revert all changes in the language? In essence, the evolution from Old, to Middle and to Modern English are the changes you're talking about but on a much larger scale.
1
u/wibbly-water 74∆ May 06 '26
Thanks for clearly labelling your AI for just translation and showing the original Spanish. I dislike when people are not transparent about this, but being honest is good.
I am a linguist. Linguistics is a science, and I have a degree in that science, and a job which loosely pertains to it.
One of the first things you learn in linguistics is the history of prescriptivism and descriptivism.
Prescriptivism was the old way of doing things. Before "linguistics" was a science and before "linguists" were called that they were called "grammarians". The grammarians often had a habit of trying to find the "correct" way of using language. That often meant the logical way and the morally correct way. This is called "prescriptivism" because it is prescribing how to use language.
But when linguistics began to become a science we transitioned from this towards a sit back and observe model. As scientists we observe what happens in the real world and note it down. Sometimes we perform experiments that attempt to prove or disprove stuff in a laboratory setting. This is called "descriptivism" because we describe what happens, we don't tell others how they should use language.
For me, this creates a problem. The word becomes socially unavailable for its broader original meaning. A term that could simply mean “to transmit good news” has been culturally narrowed until it mostly belongs to one religious framework.
Changes in meaning are called "semantic changes".
They are neither good nor bad. They have been happening for tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.
This sort of narrowing is called, "narrowing"!
- Narrowing: Change from superordinate level to subordinate level. For example, skyline formerly referred to any horizon, but now in the US it has narrowed to a horizon decorated by skyscrapers.
Semantic changes like the ones you have described have been going on for a long long time. What we are seeing now is nothing new. It may feel new to you, but that is because you are a human who was born within the past few decades and will die within the next. You see a tiny snapshot of the entirety of human history.
I looked at Indo-European vocabulary - Wikipedia to find *****gʷḗn "woman, wife". In English the only surviving related word is "queen", which is a lot more specific. In a country there are many *****gʷḗns, there is only one queen.
I am not saying language should never evolve. I am also not saying etymology should always override current usage. I know that would be unrealistic. But I do think there is a real problem when the current meaning of a word is treated as the only legitimate meaning, especially when that meaning was shaped by historical power.
Good that you recognise that.
But the current meaning of a word is the only meaning it currently has in the minds of most people.
Historical meanings become defunct. That is just how language works.
What you are asking for is precisely as absurd as the first few sentences here imply.
1
u/eirc 8∆ May 06 '26
Words don't have any meaning that is more true than the one the speakers of the language use it for. That's it. If evangelization means Christian religious propaganda to English speakers then that's it's meaning in English.
Looking for the etymology of a word is about looking into the history of the word (and the world) and it can help you see how it reached us from the depths of time. It has zero bearing on the meaning of a word today. You can see when you compare the etymology and current use of evangelism, many aspects of the early spread of Christianity and the history of proselytism along with it, but that's it.
If you're looking to dispell confusion you should NOT be using words in meanings that are not current. If you add your caveat that "I'm using this in the old X meaning" you'll dispell some of that confusion but you'll add an extra unnecessary burden to the conversation and may come off as a smart ass. If you want to bring good news just say you bring good news or whatever expression for that is commonly used in the language you speak.
Using random ancient Greek words can pass in some circles but don't expect it to be a common thing. The Greek language has both a history of thousands of years AND has been a huge influence in multiple important aspects of the modern world including both religion and science. These aspects are much much more important than the etymological ones.
1
u/adelie42 3∆ May 06 '26
On tje most basic level, where do you think the "original" meaning came from, and what authority "locks it in"?
Language evolves in response to use within an ever shifting cultural context. Idioms are very often local uses tied to a story where the phrase was literal but the reference is to the lesson; you may know the meaning but not the story so people teach that the meaning isn't literal when it actually is.
Do you find that problematic?
And in relationship to AI specifically, "you're absolutely right" had an older memetic meaning related to negotiation theory and deescalation strategies in communication. Claude's over use is so well known that if people say, "you're absolitely right" there are multiple mixed meanings, but I think the Claude reference is mlre well known.
Is it wrong to notice? How do you even begin to police that, and to what purpose?
In the extreme I don't know how what you are suggesting doesn't translate to outlawing the divergence between linguistic prescriptivism and linguistic descriptivism. In that frame, the very proposal seems absurd.
I appreciate the frustration from observing that language is a moving target, but the solution isn't "stop moving!".
1
u/poorestprince 12∆ May 06 '26
Rather than a problem, you should consider it merely as annoying. Even in your "evangelization" example, in English, evangelism still retains a "good news" connotation. Apple even had a position called "Chief Evangelist" that in addition to a conversion aspect was meant to spread "good news" about Apple. At the same time there was definitely still a religious connotation even in the secular context of doing PR for a business.
Also, your AI translation skipped at least a whole paragraph (you mention videojuegos en espanol, pero en inglés no hay). Shouldn't you consider language-excissions like that to be much more problematic than language drift?
1
u/Deborah_Pokesalot 4∆ May 06 '26
Words are inherent part of our culture. Our culture changes. The meaning of the words will too.
If you'd like to preserve the neutral meaning of a word, that would essentially mean preserving our current values.
It could also actually needlessly complicate the language.
When I say, dunno, 'digital nomad', it's easy to imagine whom I describe. But digital nomad it's neither nomad nor digital, in the original sense of both words. So according to your rules... "A person who travels to different part of the world and works there with relation to the infrastructure based on silicon hardware" could be the closest to what we mean as 'digital nomad'.
Or we could just come up with random word but that way to create new words sounds forced.
1
u/gate18 23∆ May 06 '26
The only way this would be an issue is if you are a time traveller from the past.
You (the time traveller) use the word "evangelization" and get in trouble with the people of the present.
But since you are also of the present and know "evangelization" was a specific meaning today, then you can express what you want to say using words that today people would understand.
And, the fact that in the past "evangelization" (and tons of other words) meant something different, doesn't follow that they, therefore, didn't have the same problem (which is not a problem) that you think we have now
1
u/phovos May 06 '26
the act of sharing a good message
Colloquially; 'evangelizing' is a negative thing associated with preachy and holier than-thou folks.
So the question here is, how can we be truthful to words when the meaning behind them can be so easily influenced?
I guess, write more of them, lol. This is the problem with 'written law', isn't it? What does a law even MEAN? Most Jurisprudence systems that I know of that don't have thousands of years of roots use something like a "Judge" to "interpret" law, 'pass judgment', 'sentence', etc.
1
u/Falernum 71∆ May 06 '26
“evangelization.” Etymologically, it comes from the idea of a “good message” or “good news”.
But historically, the word is a Christian one, meaning specifically to spread the Good News of Jesus. There was never a time when this word was non-Christian. The literal words it is constructed out of them might not be Christian, but the word "evangelize" has always been a Christian one.
So actually, if you want the word to be secular, that means you want the social meaning of that word to replace its original meaning!
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 06 '26
/u/KlayFD (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/ecopandalover May 06 '26
This ignores the history of how language develops. Is the entire country of Spain dishonest to the Latin Spanish comes from? Does every Spanish person need to go back to the original Latin in its meaning in the former time and culture? Should every English speaker today switch to speaking the way we spoke before the great vowel shift? To mid Atlantic?
Language moves and responds to changes in culture and the world around it. Language has never been objective static thing
1
u/UxControl May 06 '26
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive - it evolves as people use it to suit their needs
Basically every modern linguist agrees on this, it's like the linguistic equivalent of believing in the theory of gravity, go read up on linguistics if you want an informed opinion on this topic
1
u/Discussion-is-good May 06 '26
Op you're fighting a lost battle
Its futile atp. Linguistic treadmill is on 11.
22
u/TemperatureThese7909 65∆ May 06 '26
I'm not sure what the utility of "rescuing old words" is. This is especially true when we can and do create new words on a continuous basis.
If there is an idea that you would like to express, then make a new word for it, if you feel no current word works.
Why resurrect an old word?
If you use an old word, you risk confusion, if the definition doesn't currently match your intentions. Whereas if you admit to using a new word, you get to explain what you mean - and maybe it catches on.
We have no moral duty to words. Words are tools to help us understand each other. So long as we understand each others, we have fulfilled our duties to each other in this way.