> Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a permanent unchangable state of affairs... as if that is that persons identity. ... How so?

> Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a permanent unchangable state of affairs... as if that is that persons identity. ... How so? Imagine these two sentences: "The slave poured wine from an amphora" and "The waiter poured wine from an amphora" ... These are the same sentence aside from the word used to describe the one doing the pouring. The word, in this context, describes a current mode of existing for the person doing the pouring but I cannot see at all why "slave" as a word implies an inherent/permanent state of affairs in a way that "waiter" doesn't. "John was a slave in 113BC" vs. "John was a metalwoker in 113BC"... Seriously please explain to me where on earth you are getting an implication it's permanent, I am so confused EDIT: I do kinda get the "is their identity part", but no more than referring to someone by their occupation or by their hobby (i.e "David is a bird watcher") does