I do think this is interesting, but it does feel to me that we do have words for a lot of these. Maybe not words that capture the idiom-like quality. Like we have lots of words for people who do...
I do think this is interesting, but it does feel to me that we do have words for a lot of these. Maybe not words that capture the idiom-like quality. Like we have lots of words for people who do not show interest in things--indifferent, apathetic, impassive, etc--and while obviously the term "I-don't-care-ist" is not an existing term, it's still translatable as far as I can tell.
I couldn't think of a parallel to "insortable", "aktivansteher", "ochtendhumeur" though. We've got some words that come close, but I don't think seem to capture the connotation.
I tell people I have the worst luck in video games that are RNG based. They never believe me until they actually play with me - suddenly nothing of worth is ever dropping anymore. I really like...
I tell people I have the worst luck in video games that are RNG based. They never believe me until they actually play with me - suddenly nothing of worth is ever dropping anymore. I really like that the Greeks have a word for this, as I've never felt like the English language has done it justice.
In general I agree with your assessment, but I'm also an outsider to most of these words. I'm sure the social connotations of these words do it more justice than the writer possibly can, and that as outsiders we're missing the full picture of what that word truly represents and how English has failed to capture it's essence.
I agree with cadadr, this should be in ~misc. These kind of articles are fun, but not very useful. And the title is false: English can evidently name those personality traits. It does so in the...
I agree with cadadr, this should be in ~misc. These kind of articles are fun, but not very useful. And the title is false: English can evidently name those personality traits. It does so in the article.
Also, I'm curious about the first sentence, "The English language may be one of the richest in the world". The author motivates this by saying there is a broad range of nuance, basically that it has a lot of synonyms. But there are many ways to decide a language's "richness", and amount of words or synonyms is just one.
Except by and large that is simply a feature of languages like German where you can construct words by joining other words - English also has informal word construction, but with prefixes and...
Except by and large that is simply a feature of languages like German where you can construct words by joining other words - English also has informal word construction, but with prefixes and suffixes rather than simply removing spaces between words. Take 'aktivansteher'. It's not actually a single word, it's just a noun phrase with the spaces removed.
I don't know German so can't really argue the example, but if we're splitting hairs for the definition of a word, I would say you're more likely to find 'aktivansteher' in a dictionary than...
I don't know German so can't really argue the example, but if we're splitting hairs for the definition of a word, I would say you're more likely to find 'aktivansteher' in a dictionary than 'active queuer'.
But the authors point still stands, English is flexible enough to accommodate new words, but found no need to describe a 'pro queuer'. I'm sure there are examples of English words that have no German equivalent, even with word mashing features. I think the author is implying cultural differences are reflected in the available lexicon.
It's nothing to do with definition of a word, and everything to do with definition of a meaning. English makes constructs with multiple words, other languages make construct with compound words....
It's nothing to do with definition of a word, and everything to do with definition of a meaning. English makes constructs with multiple words, other languages make construct with compound words. It's an arbitrary and ultimately pointless distinction from any possible perspective besides clickbait listicles.
That was lovely, thanks! I especially like почемучка. BTW I think this belongs more in ~misc, assuming ~humanities is aimed to be rather more academic stuff. I'm not sure that that's correct, though.
That was lovely, thanks! I especially like почемучка.
BTW I think this belongs more in ~misc, assuming ~humanities is aimed to be rather more academic stuff. I'm not sure that that's correct, though.
I always though of huminites as just stuff related to people, I guess it kind of sounds like a school subject, but limiting it to just academic discussion seems better achieved with a tag. There...
I always though of huminites as just stuff related to people, I guess it kind of sounds like a school subject, but limiting it to just academic discussion seems better achieved with a tag. There is also precedent with plently of other linguistic articles posted here.
Fair, that might be me misinterpreting the purpose of the group. This article has nothing to do with linguistics, though. Language related, indeed, but not linguistics.
Fair, that might be me misinterpreting the purpose of the group.
This article has nothing to do with linguistics, though. Language related, indeed, but not linguistics.
Even though the category of "humanities" is defined as a field of academics, that doesn't mean this group should contain only academic articles. Not all articles about language or religion or...
Even though the category of "humanities" is defined as a field of academics, that doesn't mean this group should contain only academic articles. Not all articles about language or religion or history have to be fancy academic studies. They can be about normal everyday news or experiences related to these things.
This article is fine. It's about language, so it belongs in the linguistics stream of ~humanities.
Humanities is a school subject - or, at least, a group of school subjects. It's a field of academics which studies human expression, like language, religion, history, philosophy, and the arts....
Humanities is a school subject - or, at least, a group of school subjects. It's a field of academics which studies human expression, like language, religion, history, philosophy, and the arts. It's not just "stuff related to people". Some people have been using ~humanities to dump anything which mentions "people", but it is a bit more specific than that.
There are words for all of them. Some of them have slightly different flavours. Intractable Shocking Unlucky Awkward Homebody Grouch / Not a morning person Inquisitive British Complacent Melodious
There are words for all of them. Some of them have slightly different flavours.
1] Intractable means stubborn or unwilling/unable to change. It's not the same as someone you don't want to take out in public. 4] Awkward might be your reaction to someone who is mimoso around...
1] Intractable means stubborn or unwilling/unable to change. It's not the same as someone you don't want to take out in public.
4] Awkward might be your reaction to someone who is mimoso around you, but it's not what mimoso is.
5] A homebody is just someone who prefers to be at home, rather than going out. However, someone who likes pottering around in the garden all day is just as much a homebody as someone who lies on the couch watching Netflix.
6] Ochtendhumeur is a noun which refers to the bad mood itself, not to the person who is feeling the bad mood.
7] The description of почемучка seems to have an affectionate quality, and links the questioning behaviour to childishness. It seems to be like an innocent cute form of inquisitiveness.
8] Not all British people queue, and not only British people queue. Queuing is also quite common here in Australia.
9] Complacent is an adjective, but menefreghista is a noun referring to a person who is complacent.
EDIT: The automatic numbering format overrode my attempt to manually override automatic numbering!
I think there are still words that can describe these. I just find the entire concept of "we don't have words to describe this thing that I'm describing using words" to be slightly ridiculous....
I think there are still words that can describe these.
I just find the entire concept of "we don't have words to describe this thing that I'm describing using words" to be slightly ridiculous. English is a rich language full of ways to say each of the things that were listed. That's why we're able to actually talk about them.
Also specifically re: your rebuttals:
Intractable means hard to control or deal with (it's not limited to stubbornness). There are lots of other viable near-synonyms.
Homebody is still appropriate here. You can further clarify homebody in many ways, or you could say, "pyjamaholic" which is perfectly understandable.
Obviously one can substitute grouchy for grouch if you're concerned explicitly with the mood itself
Inquisitiveness is already innocent and frequently cute. You could modify this with "childishly inquisitive" if you feel necessary
I was joking with British, which I think was obvious.
Complacent / Complacency / Complacent person
Saying that the words don't exist because they're a verb in one language and a noun in the other is a distinction that I think is meaningless. That can be attributed to how the individual languages are structured, or how it is common to express something within those languages.
I do think this is interesting, but it does feel to me that we do have words for a lot of these. Maybe not words that capture the idiom-like quality. Like we have lots of words for people who do not show interest in things--indifferent, apathetic, impassive, etc--and while obviously the term "I-don't-care-ist" is not an existing term, it's still translatable as far as I can tell.
I couldn't think of a parallel to "insortable", "aktivansteher", "ochtendhumeur" though. We've got some words that come close, but I don't think seem to capture the connotation.
I tell people I have the worst luck in video games that are RNG based. They never believe me until they actually play with me - suddenly nothing of worth is ever dropping anymore. I really like that the Greeks have a word for this, as I've never felt like the English language has done it justice.
In general I agree with your assessment, but I'm also an outsider to most of these words. I'm sure the social connotations of these words do it more justice than the writer possibly can, and that as outsiders we're missing the full picture of what that word truly represents and how English has failed to capture it's essence.
I agree with cadadr, this should be in ~misc. These kind of articles are fun, but not very useful. And the title is false: English can evidently name those personality traits. It does so in the article.
Also, I'm curious about the first sentence, "The English language may be one of the richest in the world". The author motivates this by saying there is a broad range of nuance, basically that it has a lot of synonyms. But there are many ways to decide a language's "richness", and amount of words or synonyms is just one.
It can describe the traits sure, but lacks the words to name, implying a single word.
Except by and large that is simply a feature of languages like German where you can construct words by joining other words - English also has informal word construction, but with prefixes and suffixes rather than simply removing spaces between words. Take 'aktivansteher'. It's not actually a single word, it's just a noun phrase with the spaces removed.
I don't know German so can't really argue the example, but if we're splitting hairs for the definition of a word, I would say you're more likely to find 'aktivansteher' in a dictionary than 'active queuer'.
But the authors point still stands, English is flexible enough to accommodate new words, but found no need to describe a 'pro queuer'. I'm sure there are examples of English words that have no German equivalent, even with word mashing features. I think the author is implying cultural differences are reflected in the available lexicon.
It's nothing to do with definition of a word, and everything to do with definition of a meaning. English makes constructs with multiple words, other languages make construct with compound words. It's an arbitrary and ultimately pointless distinction from any possible perspective besides clickbait listicles.
That was lovely, thanks! I especially like почемучка.
BTW I think this belongs more in ~misc, assuming ~humanities is aimed to be rather more academic stuff. I'm not sure that that's correct, though.
I always though of huminites as just stuff related to people, I guess it kind of sounds like a school subject, but limiting it to just academic discussion seems better achieved with a tag. There is also precedent with plently of other linguistic articles posted here.
Fair, that might be me misinterpreting the purpose of the group.
This article has nothing to do with linguistics, though. Language related, indeed, but not linguistics.
Even though the category of "humanities" is defined as a field of academics, that doesn't mean this group should contain only academic articles. Not all articles about language or religion or history have to be fancy academic studies. They can be about normal everyday news or experiences related to these things.
This article is fine. It's about language, so it belongs in the linguistics stream of ~humanities.
Humanities is a school subject - or, at least, a group of school subjects. It's a field of academics which studies human expression, like language, religion, history, philosophy, and the arts. It's not just "stuff related to people". Some people have been using ~humanities to dump anything which mentions "people", but it is a bit more specific than that.
There are words for all of them. Some of them have slightly different flavours.
1] Intractable means stubborn or unwilling/unable to change. It's not the same as someone you don't want to take out in public.
4] Awkward might be your reaction to someone who is mimoso around you, but it's not what mimoso is.
5] A homebody is just someone who prefers to be at home, rather than going out. However, someone who likes pottering around in the garden all day is just as much a homebody as someone who lies on the couch watching Netflix.
6] Ochtendhumeur is a noun which refers to the bad mood itself, not to the person who is feeling the bad mood.
7] The description of почемучка seems to have an affectionate quality, and links the questioning behaviour to childishness. It seems to be like an innocent cute form of inquisitiveness.
8] Not all British people queue, and not only British people queue. Queuing is also quite common here in Australia.
9] Complacent is an adjective, but menefreghista is a noun referring to a person who is complacent.
EDIT: The automatic numbering format overrode my attempt to manually override automatic numbering!
I think there are still words that can describe these.
I just find the entire concept of "we don't have words to describe this thing that I'm describing using words" to be slightly ridiculous. English is a rich language full of ways to say each of the things that were listed. That's why we're able to actually talk about them.
Also specifically re: your rebuttals:
Saying that the words don't exist because they're a verb in one language and a noun in the other is a distinction that I think is meaningless. That can be attributed to how the individual languages are structured, or how it is common to express something within those languages.