The way things are. - eviltoast
  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s possible. Language evolves. You’re likely not going to get it to catch on with root awareness. That’s hardly how English has evolved for the last century.

        • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          You know, I haven’t looked at anything linguistics related since taking Latin in college, but I am roughly aware of there being a trend of new words being added for sometimes popular usage reasons as opposed to true neologisms.

          Totally random, but one of my favorite things about studying Latin was finally understanding who/whose/which lol

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Qui, quid, quod, cuem, cuius? I don’t know if I remember correctly myself. It was a nightmare to understand at first.

            Yes, all dictionary updates are colloquially based. Meaning the word or alternate definition must be widely adopted in everyday language. All new admissions are based on what people use, not what words are “supposed to mean.”

            • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Aye, those be the ones. Cuius almost even sounds like “whose” if you chop off the k sound. Pheweee, by the end of the 4th semester, I was drowning in different ablatives.

              Well, I’m going to keep on popularizing retro-definitions and roots, unless you have a different recommendation in this specific situation?

              Should I keep reminding people the Arabs and Jews are both Semites? Or would you argue that only Jews are Semitic?

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                No, you’re right. They’re both Semites. The thing is, the Jews have been persecuted for two millennia, to the point that it’s a massive part of their culture. Half of their holidays are in remembrance of moments of past persecution. They need a word to define it, since neither racism nor religious persecution applies. That’s the really shitty thing about Netanyahu wielding it in defense of his actions. Besides putting a target on the back of Jews around the world that have no connection to Zionism, it dilutes a concept that has plagued the Jews for all of their recorded history.

                  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    Yeah, but they flip it. It’s not about the effects of persecution. They focus all of the stories and holidays on how unity and remembrance got them through the oppression. It’s actually kind of beautiful.