Conlang Random Thread

[bradrn]

It is a bit hard to find a reason for why such a basic word would be replaced by a new word.

Not really; zompist has noted before that words related to women are particularly susceptible to dramatic shifts. (See for example Leilis’s comments on German, or for that matter English words like ‘hussy’ or ‘mistress’.)

[Leilis]

It is a bit hard to find a reason for why such a basic word would be replaced by a new word.

Not really; zompist has noted before that words related to women are particularly susceptible to dramatic shifts. (See for example Leilis’s comments on German, or for that matter English words like ‘hussy’ or ‘mistress’.)

And even 'woman', at least for some English-speakers! I'm far more likely to say e.g. 'the lady at the front desk' (or 'the girl at the front desk' if she's youngish) than 'the woman at the front desk'.

[bradrn]

It is a bit hard to find a reason for why such a basic word would be replaced by a new word.

Not really; zompist has noted before that words related to women are particularly susceptible to dramatic shifts. (See for example Leilis’s comments on German, or for that matter English words like ‘hussy’ or ‘mistress’.)

And even 'woman', at least for some English-speakers! I'm far more likely to say e.g. 'the lady at the front desk' (or 'the girl at the front desk' if she's youngish) than 'the woman at the front desk'.

This is true too, though I wouldn’t say that ‘woman’ is yet derogatory in and of itself.

[Raphael]

And even 'woman', at least for some English-speakers! I'm far more likely to say e.g. 'the lady at the front desk' (or 'the girl at the front desk' if she's youngish) than 'the woman at the front desk'.

This is true too, though I wouldn’t say that ‘woman’ is yet derogatory in and of itself.

Oddly enough, I've got the impression that "that woman" is generally seen as more derogatory than "the woman".

[Travis B.]

And even 'woman', at least for some English-speakers! I'm far more likely to say e.g. 'the lady at the front desk' (or 'the girl at the front desk' if she's youngish) than 'the woman at the front desk'.

This is true too, though I wouldn’t say that ‘woman’ is yet derogatory in and of itself.

Oddly enough, I've got the impression that "that woman" is generally seen as more derogatory than "the woman".

I agree. "Woman" is a word like "Jew" that can be perfectly neutral or can be derogatory based on exactly how it is used and what tone of voice it is said with.

[bradrn]

This is true too, though I wouldn’t say that ‘woman’ is yet derogatory in and of itself.

Oddly enough, I've got the impression that "that woman" is generally seen as more derogatory than "the woman".

I agree. "Woman" is a word like "Jew" that can be perfectly neutral or can be derogatory based on exactly how it is used and what tone of voice it is said with.

With ‘Jew’, for the most part it’s acceptable as a noun and derogatory as an adjective or verb. ‘Woman’ isn’t as clear-cut.

[Travis B.]

Oddly enough, I've got the impression that "that woman" is generally seen as more derogatory than "the woman".

I agree. "Woman" is a word like "Jew" that can be perfectly neutral or can be derogatory based on exactly how it is used and what tone of voice it is said with.

With ‘Jew’, for the most part it’s acceptable as a noun and derogatory as an adjective or verb. ‘Woman’ isn’t as clear-cut.

But what about referring to someone as "that Jew", which sounds derogatory to me?

[Leilis]

'that [any noun]' can always, depending on context and tone of voice, become derogatory.

[bradrn]

I agree. "Woman" is a word like "Jew" that can be perfectly neutral or can be derogatory based on exactly how it is used and what tone of voice it is said with.

With ‘Jew’, for the most part it’s acceptable as a noun and derogatory as an adjective or verb. ‘Woman’ isn’t as clear-cut.

But what about referring to someone as "that Jew", which sounds derogatory to me?

Fair point. I struggle to imagine a non-derogatory use of that phrase.

[Travis B.]

With ‘Jew’, for the most part it’s acceptable as a noun and derogatory as an adjective or verb. ‘Woman’ isn’t as clear-cut.

But what about referring to someone as "that Jew", which sounds derogatory to me?

Fair point. I struggle to imagine a non-derogatory use of that phrase.

Even "the Jew" feels like it would very frequently be derogatory to me.

[Man in Space]

But what about referring to someone as "that Jew", which sounds derogatory to me?

Fair point. I struggle to imagine a non-derogatory use of that phrase.

Even "the Jew" feels like it would very frequently be derogatory to me.

“The Jew who defied the king’s order was thrown into the lions’ den, but that Jew was Daniel, and he survived.”

[Travis B.]

Fair point. I struggle to imagine a non-derogatory use of that phrase.

Even "the Jew" feels like it would very frequently be derogatory to me.

“The Jew who defied the king’s order was thrown into the lions’ den, but that Jew was Daniel, and he survived.”

That usage is a bit of an exception here.

If one uses "the Jew" to refer to an archetypical Jew, it is easily derogatory. Same thing with calling someone "that Jew" when one is not simply clarifying which Jew one is speaking of.

[malloc]

Granted the perception of sophistication is obviously quite subjective. German seems reasonably sophisticated with its famously dense philosophical tradition (Kant and Hegel and so forth) yet it also has many constructions that sound rather silly if translated literally: water-stuff for hydrogen, flutter-mouse for bat, and so forth. The fact that Germans talk about "coal stuff" and "sour stuff" has hardly hindered them in the field of chemistry.

[xxx]

'that [any noun]' can always, depending on context and tone of voice, become derogatory.

agree...

[bradrn]

Granted the perception of sophistication is obviously quite subjective. German seems reasonably sophisticated with its famously dense philosophical tradition (Kant and Hegel and so forth) yet it also has many constructions that sound rather silly if translated literally: water-stuff for hydrogen, flutter-mouse for bat, and so forth. The fact that Germans talk about "coal stuff" and "sour stuff" has hardly hindered them in the field of chemistry.

Of course those only sound ‘silly’ to us because English has systematically replaced native roots with Latinate ones in learned vocabulary. Words like ‘hydrogen’ have similar etymologies, they’re just non-transparent.

(See also: Uncleftish Beholding.)

[xxx]

an assembly of foreign sounds, understood by only a select elite,
would better convey meaning more effectively...
It adds a touch of magic...

the same magic that fosters healing when one hears a simple translation of one’s symptoms,
or that bestows anointing when spoken in an ancient imperial tongue,
or drives better sales when translated into the language of one's oppressors...

it is the exact opposite of a language with semantic primitives,
where sounds align solely with the meaning each speaker invests in it...

[jal]

Speaking of which, another concern regarding my project is whether the minimalist qualities leave it feeling unsophisticated. Originally one of my inspirations was the C programming language, widely regarded as both minimalist (or close to the metal) and sophisticated. Yet I worry that it feels more like BASIC.

I have issues with your claim that C is regarded as either "minimalist" or "sophisticated". I've never seen either term being used to describe it. Also, there's nothing wrong with BASIC :D.


JAL

[Travis B.]

Speaking of which, another concern regarding my project is whether the minimalist qualities leave it feeling unsophisticated. Originally one of my inspirations was the C programming language, widely regarded as both minimalist (or close to the metal) and sophisticated. Yet I worry that it feels more like BASIC.

I have issues with your claim that C is regarded as either "minimalist" or "sophisticated". I've never seen either term being used to describe it. Also, there's nothing wrong with BASIC .

The description of C I have seen is that it is "portable assembly". I should note that it is minimalist compared to languages like C++, but it is certainly not minimalist compared to, say, Forth. I hadn't seen it described as "sophisticated" myself.

As for BASIC, that covers a wide range of languages from classic interpreted microcomputer BASIC's complete with line numbers to the likes of QuickBasic (and modern-day offshoots like QB64) to the likes of VB.NET. I do have to say that the old interpreted BASIC's were awful (it is a shame that the only old microcomputer that had Forth in ROM was the Jupiter ACE), and while more modern BASIC's are certainly much better, if I need something quick and dirty to hack something together in these days I reach for Python.

[bradrn]

if I need something quick and dirty to hack something together in these days I reach for Python.

Not Forth?

[Travis B.]

if I need something quick and dirty to hack something together in these days I reach for Python.

Not Forth?

Forth is interactive and, for a native-code Forth like zeptoforth, fast but very low-level and unforgiving (it is easy to crash a Forth), and lends itself to very deliberate memory management and like (yeah, you can just allocate RAM willy-nilly if you feel like it in many Forths*, but that is sacrificing the ability to directly control memory usage); it is my go-to language when targeting small systems. However, on PC's, when I need to just quickly hack something together and I do not care about things like memory management or efficiency, and I do care about things being conveniently available in a standard library, my go-to language is Python.

* In zeptoforth this is not exactly the case, because you need to manually allot memory with, say, buffer: and construct a heap using that memory, which you have to pass to allocate, resize, and free; note that in zeptoforth you can have multiple independent heaps whereas many Forths do not support this.