3 ms·

You say that English can be sorted into two registers, but the example you give of a low register doesn't actually exist or get recognized or used, so I'm not s

You say that English can be sorted into two registers, but the example you give of a low register doesn't actually exist or get recognized or used, so I'm not sure how that is evidence that there are two registers and not just one. > It's that English vocabulary can be sorted into these two registers, a common and an academic one, and that this distinction is largely absent in several other European languages. But the example you give is of English using the same word for common and academic context.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
English uses one register for some words, e.g. "coal, handbag" and the othe register for other words, e.g. "carbon", "metabolism". You're missing the point of "but the example you give of a low register" - English does not use the lower register in that context. It's noticeable by contrast with other languages where that higher register is largely absent, which do use the standard register throughout. This guy gets it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981922 , for what it's worth. If you don't think if it's a significant point, then stop reading.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Of course English doesn't use the low register in this context - which is why I'm wondering why it was provided as an example of English having two registers. And "coal" and "carbon" are not interchangeable besides for register. They just mean different things. > If you don't think if it's a significant point, then stop reading. My point is that I either don't understand the point, or the point is wrong. Not that I think it is an insignificant point. And that isn't a very productive way to share messages on a message board.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > Of course English doesn't use the low register in this context - which is why I'm wondering why it was provided as an example of English having two registers If English "doesn't use the low register in this context", then that implies that there _are_ different registers for different contexts, right? In English, that is. In Dutch or German or Swedish, there are not. > And "coal" and "carbon" are not interchangeable. Um? No one said that they were, and that's not the point in any form. We're talking about formation of (related) words. IDK if this conversation is worthwhile, to be honest. You seem to be actively evading the point.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      I never argued that English only uses one register. I argued that you can't point to English having two registers by pointing out a usage of a single register and a non-existent example in another register. e.g. "There are two ways for offense to score in American football. One is a touchdown. Translating a touchdown into soccer is equivalent of saying the ball is kicked past the goal line, but when you literally reconvert that back to American football, you can't score by kicking the ball across the goal line.". That does not prove that there are two ways to score in football. That proves that there is at least one way to score in football. > IDK if this conversation is worthwhile, to be honest. You seem to be actively evading the point. Bizarre coming from someone who just said "stop reading if you don't like it".

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

English uses one register for some words, e.g. "coal, handbag" and the othe register for other words, e.g. "carbon", "metabolism". You're missing the point of "but the example you give of a low register" - English does not use the lower register in that context. It's noticeable by contrast with other languages where that higher register is largely absent, which do use the standard register throughout. This guy gets it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981922 , for what it's worth. If you don't think if it's a significant point, then stop reading.

oh_sigh 6y ago
Of course English doesn't use the low register in this context - which is why I'm wondering why it was provided as an example of English having two registers. And "coal" and "carbon" are not interchangeable besides for register. They just mean different things. > If you don't think if it's a significant point, then stop reading. My point is that I either don't understand the point, or the point is wrong. Not that I think it is an insignificant point. And that isn't a very productive way to share messages on a message board.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > Of course English doesn't use the low register in this context - which is why I'm wondering why it was provided as an example of English having two registers If English "doesn't use the low register in this context", then that implies that there _are_ different registers for different contexts, right? In English, that is. In Dutch or German or Swedish, there are not. > And "coal" and "carbon" are not interchangeable. Um? No one said that they were, and that's not the point in any form. We're talking about formation of (related) words. IDK if this conversation is worthwhile, to be honest. You seem to be actively evading the point.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    I never argued that English only uses one register. I argued that you can't point to English having two registers by pointing out a usage of a single register and a non-existent example in another register. e.g. "There are two ways for offense to score in American football. One is a touchdown. Translating a touchdown into soccer is equivalent of saying the ball is kicked past the goal line, but when you literally reconvert that back to American football, you can't score by kicking the ball across the goal line.". That does not prove that there are two ways to score in football. That proves that there is at least one way to score in football. > IDK if this conversation is worthwhile, to be honest. You seem to be actively evading the point. Bizarre coming from someone who just said "stop reading if you don't like it".