4 ms·
Someone has downvoted this, despite the fact that what I have written is not an opinion, but just facts. Because I have seen on HN extremely frequently downvot
by adrian_b 6mo ago
Someone has downvoted this, despite the fact that what I have written is not an opinion, but just facts.
Because I have seen on HN extremely frequently downvotes that just show that the downvoters are ignorant about what they downvote. I stopped a long time ago to downvote comments.
Now I either upvote when I agree and otherwise I write a comment explaining why I disagree.
It would have been better if others had followed such a policy.
Perhaps the downvoter had something to say about "cyan", but this is indeed only one example of a long list of Ancient Greek words that have been borrowed into English during the 19th and 20th century, but which are used with incorrect meanings. Most likely this is due to the fact that those who have introduced these words did not study the Ancient Greek language and they also did not consult anyone knowledgeable or any good dictionaries. Another example of this kind is "macro" used as an opposite for "micro", i.e. as "big", while the true opposite of "micro" is "mega" = "big", while "macro" means "long", the opposite of "short" ("brachy" in Ancient Greek).
- watwut 6mo agoIt is not an incorrect meaning, it is that meaning of the word in English is different. What it meant in ancient Greek or in 1805 is not relevant to what it means today. Words meanings shift over time in all languages. And when languages take sounds from other languages, they also regularly shift their meanings.
- carlosjobim 6mo agoNo, there's an original and correct meaning. Just because a majority might be wrong, doesn't make them right.
- compiler-guy 6mo agoLanguage evolves. Historical meaning can inform our understanding of modern usage but doesn’t dictate or govern it. Linguists call this “semantic drift” and it occurs in every language we know of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change Wikipedias first English example is: Awful – Literally "full of awe", originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)", hence "impressive". In contemporary usage, the word means "extremely bad".
- jerf 6mo agoPossibly even more directly, the etymological fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
- carlosjobim 6mo agoJust because we can - and should - understand what people mean when they use words wrongly, doesn't mean that words don't have correct meanings. That makes the world poorer, for no benefit at all.
- sumeno 6mo agoWhy aren't you responding in Old English then? Surely that would be more correct since it is closer to the origin
- carlosjobim 6mo agoWhy aren't you busy burning old manuscript and books, since they don't conform to your "new meaning" of words?
- compiler-guy 6mo agoBecause one of the principles involved here is that language evolves. Old books using old meanings are perfectly fine--in fact, it's to be expected. It's the purists who believe that original meanings are the only possibly correct ones that need to stick to old English. Or perhaps even old Norse.