How long in a language several words for the same notion can coexist?
2
Sometimes a language can have several words for the same notion.
- How long such a situation can last?
- Is it good for a language to have it?
- Should language bearers and linguists do something about it?
To provide a context I describe an example which inspired me to ask this question. In Ukrainian, we have two words for rose - троянда and роза. They both point to the same flower. Роза has additional meanings, but in case you want to name this flower, they are totally interchangeable, using any of them doesn't bring any additional meaning.
semantics synonymy
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
|
show 3 more comments
2
Sometimes a language can have several words for the same notion.
- How long such a situation can last?
- Is it good for a language to have it?
- Should language bearers and linguists do something about it?
To provide a context I describe an example which inspired me to ask this question. In Ukrainian, we have two words for rose - троянда and роза. They both point to the same flower. Роза has additional meanings, but in case you want to name this flower, they are totally interchangeable, using any of them doesn't bring any additional meaning.
semantics synonymy
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
Having slightly different meanings is only one of the reasons synonyms coexist, so I don't think your edited-in example changes anything. I'd assume "троянда" either feels more "native" than "роза" (which I assume is borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Latin?), or feels more "Russian", either of which could presumably give many Ukranian speakers reason to prefer one or the other in different contexts. And certainly they sound quite different, which could at least make a difference in poetry, music, and rhetoric.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:03
Meanwhile, why are you asking this? Do you think Ukranian would be a better language if you eliminated one of these two words? If so, I'll bet you have a particular on you'd like to eliminate. So ask yourself why you chose that one, and that'll tell you the distinction between the two.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:05
@abarnert I would like to eliminate роза because it has several other meanings like compass rose. There are other too. While eliminating троянда would remove another root from the language which would make it poorer.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 5:23
2
But "compass rose" is named that because it looks like the flower. (I mean, I don't know the etymology specifically of the Ukranian term, but it's almost certainly the same as everyone else in Europe, ultimately going back to Latin "rosa ventorum", then dropping the borrowed or calqued "ventorum"/"wind" part when navigation switched to magnetic compasses.) If you eliminated "роза" for the flower, that connection would be gone, which would probably have an impact on both the learnability of "роза" for the compass rose, and the ways you can use it poetically and artistically.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:37
1
@J-mster That's interesting. I was just guessing about the etymology. I guessed троянда would be borrowed into Common Slavic from Byzantine Greek, not borrowed into Ukranian from modern Greek—but I should know better; just because something seems more plausible at first glance doesn't mean you can assume it's true…
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 19:48
|
show 3 more comments
2
2
2
0
Sometimes a language can have several words for the same notion.
- How long such a situation can last?
- Is it good for a language to have it?
- Should language bearers and linguists do something about it?
To provide a context I describe an example which inspired me to ask this question. In Ukrainian, we have two words for rose - троянда and роза. They both point to the same flower. Роза has additional meanings, but in case you want to name this flower, they are totally interchangeable, using any of them doesn't bring any additional meaning.
semantics synonymy
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
Sometimes a language can have several words for the same notion.
- How long such a situation can last?
- Is it good for a language to have it?
- Should language bearers and linguists do something about it?
To provide a context I describe an example which inspired me to ask this question. In Ukrainian, we have two words for rose - троянда and роза. They both point to the same flower. Роза has additional meanings, but in case you want to name this flower, they are totally interchangeable, using any of them doesn't bring any additional meaning.
semantics synonymy
semantics synonymy
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
edited Feb 2 at 15:27
bytebuster
6,25652652
6,25652652
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
asked Feb 2 at 4:06
YolaYola
1134
1134
Having slightly different meanings is only one of the reasons synonyms coexist, so I don't think your edited-in example changes anything. I'd assume "троянда" either feels more "native" than "роза" (which I assume is borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Latin?), or feels more "Russian", either of which could presumably give many Ukranian speakers reason to prefer one or the other in different contexts. And certainly they sound quite different, which could at least make a difference in poetry, music, and rhetoric.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:03
Meanwhile, why are you asking this? Do you think Ukranian would be a better language if you eliminated one of these two words? If so, I'll bet you have a particular on you'd like to eliminate. So ask yourself why you chose that one, and that'll tell you the distinction between the two.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:05
@abarnert I would like to eliminate роза because it has several other meanings like compass rose. There are other too. While eliminating троянда would remove another root from the language which would make it poorer.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 5:23
2
But "compass rose" is named that because it looks like the flower. (I mean, I don't know the etymology specifically of the Ukranian term, but it's almost certainly the same as everyone else in Europe, ultimately going back to Latin "rosa ventorum", then dropping the borrowed or calqued "ventorum"/"wind" part when navigation switched to magnetic compasses.) If you eliminated "роза" for the flower, that connection would be gone, which would probably have an impact on both the learnability of "роза" for the compass rose, and the ways you can use it poetically and artistically.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:37
1
@J-mster That's interesting. I was just guessing about the etymology. I guessed троянда would be borrowed into Common Slavic from Byzantine Greek, not borrowed into Ukranian from modern Greek—but I should know better; just because something seems more plausible at first glance doesn't mean you can assume it's true…
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 19:48
|
show 3 more comments
Having slightly different meanings is only one of the reasons synonyms coexist, so I don't think your edited-in example changes anything. I'd assume "троянда" either feels more "native" than "роза" (which I assume is borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Latin?), or feels more "Russian", either of which could presumably give many Ukranian speakers reason to prefer one or the other in different contexts. And certainly they sound quite different, which could at least make a difference in poetry, music, and rhetoric.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:03
Meanwhile, why are you asking this? Do you think Ukranian would be a better language if you eliminated one of these two words? If so, I'll bet you have a particular on you'd like to eliminate. So ask yourself why you chose that one, and that'll tell you the distinction between the two.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:05
@abarnert I would like to eliminate роза because it has several other meanings like compass rose. There are other too. While eliminating троянда would remove another root from the language which would make it poorer.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 5:23
2
But "compass rose" is named that because it looks like the flower. (I mean, I don't know the etymology specifically of the Ukranian term, but it's almost certainly the same as everyone else in Europe, ultimately going back to Latin "rosa ventorum", then dropping the borrowed or calqued "ventorum"/"wind" part when navigation switched to magnetic compasses.) If you eliminated "роза" for the flower, that connection would be gone, which would probably have an impact on both the learnability of "роза" for the compass rose, and the ways you can use it poetically and artistically.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:37
1
@J-mster That's interesting. I was just guessing about the etymology. I guessed троянда would be borrowed into Common Slavic from Byzantine Greek, not borrowed into Ukranian from modern Greek—but I should know better; just because something seems more plausible at first glance doesn't mean you can assume it's true…
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 19:48
Having slightly different meanings is only one of the reasons synonyms coexist, so I don't think your edited-in example changes anything. I'd assume "троянда" either feels more "native" than "роза" (which I assume is borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Latin?), or feels more "Russian", either of which could presumably give many Ukranian speakers reason to prefer one or the other in different contexts. And certainly they sound quite different, which could at least make a difference in poetry, music, and rhetoric.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:03
Having slightly different meanings is only one of the reasons synonyms coexist, so I don't think your edited-in example changes anything. I'd assume "троянда" either feels more "native" than "роза" (which I assume is borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Latin?), or feels more "Russian", either of which could presumably give many Ukranian speakers reason to prefer one or the other in different contexts. And certainly they sound quite different, which could at least make a difference in poetry, music, and rhetoric.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:03
Meanwhile, why are you asking this? Do you think Ukranian would be a better language if you eliminated one of these two words? If so, I'll bet you have a particular on you'd like to eliminate. So ask yourself why you chose that one, and that'll tell you the distinction between the two.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:05
Meanwhile, why are you asking this? Do you think Ukranian would be a better language if you eliminated one of these two words? If so, I'll bet you have a particular on you'd like to eliminate. So ask yourself why you chose that one, and that'll tell you the distinction between the two.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:05
@abarnert I would like to eliminate роза because it has several other meanings like compass rose. There are other too. While eliminating троянда would remove another root from the language which would make it poorer.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 5:23
@abarnert I would like to eliminate роза because it has several other meanings like compass rose. There are other too. While eliminating троянда would remove another root from the language which would make it poorer.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 5:23
2
2
But "compass rose" is named that because it looks like the flower. (I mean, I don't know the etymology specifically of the Ukranian term, but it's almost certainly the same as everyone else in Europe, ultimately going back to Latin "rosa ventorum", then dropping the borrowed or calqued "ventorum"/"wind" part when navigation switched to magnetic compasses.) If you eliminated "роза" for the flower, that connection would be gone, which would probably have an impact on both the learnability of "роза" for the compass rose, and the ways you can use it poetically and artistically.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:37
But "compass rose" is named that because it looks like the flower. (I mean, I don't know the etymology specifically of the Ukranian term, but it's almost certainly the same as everyone else in Europe, ultimately going back to Latin "rosa ventorum", then dropping the borrowed or calqued "ventorum"/"wind" part when navigation switched to magnetic compasses.) If you eliminated "роза" for the flower, that connection would be gone, which would probably have an impact on both the learnability of "роза" for the compass rose, and the ways you can use it poetically and artistically.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:37
1
1
@J-mster That's interesting. I was just guessing about the etymology. I guessed троянда would be borrowed into Common Slavic from Byzantine Greek, not borrowed into Ukranian from modern Greek—but I should know better; just because something seems more plausible at first glance doesn't mean you can assume it's true…
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 19:48
@J-mster That's interesting. I was just guessing about the etymology. I guessed троянда would be borrowed into Common Slavic from Byzantine Greek, not borrowed into Ukranian from modern Greek—but I should know better; just because something seems more plausible at first glance doesn't mean you can assume it's true…
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 19:48
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
5
Every language is chock full of synonyms—hundreds or thousands of them.
Usually, those synonyms have some difference. They might:
- … have slightly different connotations (usually "baby" includes toddlers, but "infant" doesn't),
- … be usable in different sets of constructions (compare "eat" and "consume"—only the latter requires an object),
- … be in different registers (compare "hello" and "hi"),
- … differ only in euphony (one sounds better next to certain words but worse next to others),
- … differ only when speaking across dialects (to an English speaker whose dialect has both "eggplant" and "aubergine", they're identical—but having both lets you talk to someone from Los Angeles who only knows "eggplant" and to someone from London who only knows "aubergine"),
- … etc.
But they're still clearly "words for the same notion".
So, to answer your questions:
How long such a situation can last? Well, not quite forever, because no word lasts forever with the same meaning. Eventually one of the two synonyms will probably shift in meaning until they're no longer synonyms, or die out, or the language itself might die out… but certainly for centuries.
Is it good for a language to have it? Probably. Otherwise, language evolution would presumably work harder than it does to eliminate synonyms. It's possible that this is just a defect in the human "language organ", or in human society, but it doesn't seem likely. (Also, consider that having a pair of synonyms gives the language the raw material to adapt one of them in a new need arises, without losing the other one.)
Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? Definitely not. It's not up to linguists to try to forcibly change languages. As for normal speakers, they can try, but (a) there's no good reason to, and (b) it almost never works.1
1. If you're wondering why I said "almost", there is at least one counter-example: Ataturk's modernization of Turkish. But there were a lot of special circumstances there, like the fact that the official language they were modernizing wasn't actually spoken by anyone but the elites.
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
Thanks! I like your answer and upvoted it. I updated my question to address your answer, namely i would like to point out that in my situation two words for this notion are totally interchangeable.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 4:51
add a comment |
0
A semantic field with many synonyms is genital body parts: penis, testicle, vulva, vagina. A least several words can exist: either medical or vulgar, either adult or infantile. Think about how many words exist for "penis" in English.
About your questions:
Q1 How long such a situation can last? => it seems that such a situation can last very long, if not for ever.
Q2. Is it good for a language to have it? => people seem happy about it.
Q3. Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? => it's probably impossible to do something about it. Usage rules the real world.
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
I think situation with penis is different from situation with rose, because people often don't want to say penis and use other words to substitute it, but this is not the case with rose.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 9:40
well, is a rose not a metaphor for female genitalia ?
– Arnaud Fournet
Feb 2 at 10:20
Yes, it is, but I mean flower, and you propose to consider very specific word.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 10:34
@ArnaudFournet Sure, "rose" is used as a metaphor for female genitalia in a wide range of languages, but I don't think that's directly relevant here, and may be confusing the OP. The issue is that Ukranian has borrowed two different words for the flower, not that it uses two different metaphors for the genitalia. (Although you're surely right that Ukranian probably has even more synonyms for that than for "rose", and that is relevant; bringing up the fact that "роза" might be one of them is the part that could be confusing.)
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:49
As a side note, do you think vulgar and euphemistic synonyms tend to persist even longer than synonyms in general? For example, we've had "prick" for 300+ years, "cock" for 400+ years, etc., and they show no signs of fading away even when newer words like "dick", "plonker", "willy", etc. became firmly established. And the only drift they ever seem to experience over the centuries is becoming more or less rude and/or childish; once a word means "penis" it seems to mean "penis" forever.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30415%2fhow-long-in-a-language-several-words-for-the-same-notion-can-coexist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
5
Every language is chock full of synonyms—hundreds or thousands of them.
Usually, those synonyms have some difference. They might:
- … have slightly different connotations (usually "baby" includes toddlers, but "infant" doesn't),
- … be usable in different sets of constructions (compare "eat" and "consume"—only the latter requires an object),
- … be in different registers (compare "hello" and "hi"),
- … differ only in euphony (one sounds better next to certain words but worse next to others),
- … differ only when speaking across dialects (to an English speaker whose dialect has both "eggplant" and "aubergine", they're identical—but having both lets you talk to someone from Los Angeles who only knows "eggplant" and to someone from London who only knows "aubergine"),
- … etc.
But they're still clearly "words for the same notion".
So, to answer your questions:
How long such a situation can last? Well, not quite forever, because no word lasts forever with the same meaning. Eventually one of the two synonyms will probably shift in meaning until they're no longer synonyms, or die out, or the language itself might die out… but certainly for centuries.
Is it good for a language to have it? Probably. Otherwise, language evolution would presumably work harder than it does to eliminate synonyms. It's possible that this is just a defect in the human "language organ", or in human society, but it doesn't seem likely. (Also, consider that having a pair of synonyms gives the language the raw material to adapt one of them in a new need arises, without losing the other one.)
Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? Definitely not. It's not up to linguists to try to forcibly change languages. As for normal speakers, they can try, but (a) there's no good reason to, and (b) it almost never works.1
1. If you're wondering why I said "almost", there is at least one counter-example: Ataturk's modernization of Turkish. But there were a lot of special circumstances there, like the fact that the official language they were modernizing wasn't actually spoken by anyone but the elites.
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
Thanks! I like your answer and upvoted it. I updated my question to address your answer, namely i would like to point out that in my situation two words for this notion are totally interchangeable.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 4:51
add a comment |
5
Every language is chock full of synonyms—hundreds or thousands of them.
Usually, those synonyms have some difference. They might:
- … have slightly different connotations (usually "baby" includes toddlers, but "infant" doesn't),
- … be usable in different sets of constructions (compare "eat" and "consume"—only the latter requires an object),
- … be in different registers (compare "hello" and "hi"),
- … differ only in euphony (one sounds better next to certain words but worse next to others),
- … differ only when speaking across dialects (to an English speaker whose dialect has both "eggplant" and "aubergine", they're identical—but having both lets you talk to someone from Los Angeles who only knows "eggplant" and to someone from London who only knows "aubergine"),
- … etc.
But they're still clearly "words for the same notion".
So, to answer your questions:
How long such a situation can last? Well, not quite forever, because no word lasts forever with the same meaning. Eventually one of the two synonyms will probably shift in meaning until they're no longer synonyms, or die out, or the language itself might die out… but certainly for centuries.
Is it good for a language to have it? Probably. Otherwise, language evolution would presumably work harder than it does to eliminate synonyms. It's possible that this is just a defect in the human "language organ", or in human society, but it doesn't seem likely. (Also, consider that having a pair of synonyms gives the language the raw material to adapt one of them in a new need arises, without losing the other one.)
Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? Definitely not. It's not up to linguists to try to forcibly change languages. As for normal speakers, they can try, but (a) there's no good reason to, and (b) it almost never works.1
1. If you're wondering why I said "almost", there is at least one counter-example: Ataturk's modernization of Turkish. But there were a lot of special circumstances there, like the fact that the official language they were modernizing wasn't actually spoken by anyone but the elites.
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
Thanks! I like your answer and upvoted it. I updated my question to address your answer, namely i would like to point out that in my situation two words for this notion are totally interchangeable.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 4:51
add a comment |
5
5
5
Every language is chock full of synonyms—hundreds or thousands of them.
Usually, those synonyms have some difference. They might:
- … have slightly different connotations (usually "baby" includes toddlers, but "infant" doesn't),
- … be usable in different sets of constructions (compare "eat" and "consume"—only the latter requires an object),
- … be in different registers (compare "hello" and "hi"),
- … differ only in euphony (one sounds better next to certain words but worse next to others),
- … differ only when speaking across dialects (to an English speaker whose dialect has both "eggplant" and "aubergine", they're identical—but having both lets you talk to someone from Los Angeles who only knows "eggplant" and to someone from London who only knows "aubergine"),
- … etc.
But they're still clearly "words for the same notion".
So, to answer your questions:
How long such a situation can last? Well, not quite forever, because no word lasts forever with the same meaning. Eventually one of the two synonyms will probably shift in meaning until they're no longer synonyms, or die out, or the language itself might die out… but certainly for centuries.
Is it good for a language to have it? Probably. Otherwise, language evolution would presumably work harder than it does to eliminate synonyms. It's possible that this is just a defect in the human "language organ", or in human society, but it doesn't seem likely. (Also, consider that having a pair of synonyms gives the language the raw material to adapt one of them in a new need arises, without losing the other one.)
Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? Definitely not. It's not up to linguists to try to forcibly change languages. As for normal speakers, they can try, but (a) there's no good reason to, and (b) it almost never works.1
1. If you're wondering why I said "almost", there is at least one counter-example: Ataturk's modernization of Turkish. But there were a lot of special circumstances there, like the fact that the official language they were modernizing wasn't actually spoken by anyone but the elites.
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
Every language is chock full of synonyms—hundreds or thousands of them.
Usually, those synonyms have some difference. They might:
- … have slightly different connotations (usually "baby" includes toddlers, but "infant" doesn't),
- … be usable in different sets of constructions (compare "eat" and "consume"—only the latter requires an object),
- … be in different registers (compare "hello" and "hi"),
- … differ only in euphony (one sounds better next to certain words but worse next to others),
- … differ only when speaking across dialects (to an English speaker whose dialect has both "eggplant" and "aubergine", they're identical—but having both lets you talk to someone from Los Angeles who only knows "eggplant" and to someone from London who only knows "aubergine"),
- … etc.
But they're still clearly "words for the same notion".
So, to answer your questions:
How long such a situation can last? Well, not quite forever, because no word lasts forever with the same meaning. Eventually one of the two synonyms will probably shift in meaning until they're no longer synonyms, or die out, or the language itself might die out… but certainly for centuries.
Is it good for a language to have it? Probably. Otherwise, language evolution would presumably work harder than it does to eliminate synonyms. It's possible that this is just a defect in the human "language organ", or in human society, but it doesn't seem likely. (Also, consider that having a pair of synonyms gives the language the raw material to adapt one of them in a new need arises, without losing the other one.)
Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? Definitely not. It's not up to linguists to try to forcibly change languages. As for normal speakers, they can try, but (a) there's no good reason to, and (b) it almost never works.1
1. If you're wondering why I said "almost", there is at least one counter-example: Ataturk's modernization of Turkish. But there were a lot of special circumstances there, like the fact that the official language they were modernizing wasn't actually spoken by anyone but the elites.
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
edited Feb 2 at 5:20
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
answered Feb 2 at 4:32
abarnertabarnert
2,155217
2,155217
Thanks! I like your answer and upvoted it. I updated my question to address your answer, namely i would like to point out that in my situation two words for this notion are totally interchangeable.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 4:51
add a comment |
Thanks! I like your answer and upvoted it. I updated my question to address your answer, namely i would like to point out that in my situation two words for this notion are totally interchangeable.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 4:51
Thanks! I like your answer and upvoted it. I updated my question to address your answer, namely i would like to point out that in my situation two words for this notion are totally interchangeable.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 4:51
Thanks! I like your answer and upvoted it. I updated my question to address your answer, namely i would like to point out that in my situation two words for this notion are totally interchangeable.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 4:51
add a comment |
0
A semantic field with many synonyms is genital body parts: penis, testicle, vulva, vagina. A least several words can exist: either medical or vulgar, either adult or infantile. Think about how many words exist for "penis" in English.
About your questions:
Q1 How long such a situation can last? => it seems that such a situation can last very long, if not for ever.
Q2. Is it good for a language to have it? => people seem happy about it.
Q3. Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? => it's probably impossible to do something about it. Usage rules the real world.
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
I think situation with penis is different from situation with rose, because people often don't want to say penis and use other words to substitute it, but this is not the case with rose.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 9:40
well, is a rose not a metaphor for female genitalia ?
– Arnaud Fournet
Feb 2 at 10:20
Yes, it is, but I mean flower, and you propose to consider very specific word.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 10:34
@ArnaudFournet Sure, "rose" is used as a metaphor for female genitalia in a wide range of languages, but I don't think that's directly relevant here, and may be confusing the OP. The issue is that Ukranian has borrowed two different words for the flower, not that it uses two different metaphors for the genitalia. (Although you're surely right that Ukranian probably has even more synonyms for that than for "rose", and that is relevant; bringing up the fact that "роза" might be one of them is the part that could be confusing.)
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:49
As a side note, do you think vulgar and euphemistic synonyms tend to persist even longer than synonyms in general? For example, we've had "prick" for 300+ years, "cock" for 400+ years, etc., and they show no signs of fading away even when newer words like "dick", "plonker", "willy", etc. became firmly established. And the only drift they ever seem to experience over the centuries is becoming more or less rude and/or childish; once a word means "penis" it seems to mean "penis" forever.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
0
A semantic field with many synonyms is genital body parts: penis, testicle, vulva, vagina. A least several words can exist: either medical or vulgar, either adult or infantile. Think about how many words exist for "penis" in English.
About your questions:
Q1 How long such a situation can last? => it seems that such a situation can last very long, if not for ever.
Q2. Is it good for a language to have it? => people seem happy about it.
Q3. Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? => it's probably impossible to do something about it. Usage rules the real world.
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
I think situation with penis is different from situation with rose, because people often don't want to say penis and use other words to substitute it, but this is not the case with rose.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 9:40
well, is a rose not a metaphor for female genitalia ?
– Arnaud Fournet
Feb 2 at 10:20
Yes, it is, but I mean flower, and you propose to consider very specific word.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 10:34
@ArnaudFournet Sure, "rose" is used as a metaphor for female genitalia in a wide range of languages, but I don't think that's directly relevant here, and may be confusing the OP. The issue is that Ukranian has borrowed two different words for the flower, not that it uses two different metaphors for the genitalia. (Although you're surely right that Ukranian probably has even more synonyms for that than for "rose", and that is relevant; bringing up the fact that "роза" might be one of them is the part that could be confusing.)
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:49
As a side note, do you think vulgar and euphemistic synonyms tend to persist even longer than synonyms in general? For example, we've had "prick" for 300+ years, "cock" for 400+ years, etc., and they show no signs of fading away even when newer words like "dick", "plonker", "willy", etc. became firmly established. And the only drift they ever seem to experience over the centuries is becoming more or less rude and/or childish; once a word means "penis" it seems to mean "penis" forever.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
0
0
0
A semantic field with many synonyms is genital body parts: penis, testicle, vulva, vagina. A least several words can exist: either medical or vulgar, either adult or infantile. Think about how many words exist for "penis" in English.
About your questions:
Q1 How long such a situation can last? => it seems that such a situation can last very long, if not for ever.
Q2. Is it good for a language to have it? => people seem happy about it.
Q3. Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? => it's probably impossible to do something about it. Usage rules the real world.
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
A semantic field with many synonyms is genital body parts: penis, testicle, vulva, vagina. A least several words can exist: either medical or vulgar, either adult or infantile. Think about how many words exist for "penis" in English.
About your questions:
Q1 How long such a situation can last? => it seems that such a situation can last very long, if not for ever.
Q2. Is it good for a language to have it? => people seem happy about it.
Q3. Should language bearers and linguists do something about it? => it's probably impossible to do something about it. Usage rules the real world.
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
answered Feb 2 at 9:34
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
75827
75827
I think situation with penis is different from situation with rose, because people often don't want to say penis and use other words to substitute it, but this is not the case with rose.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 9:40
well, is a rose not a metaphor for female genitalia ?
– Arnaud Fournet
Feb 2 at 10:20
Yes, it is, but I mean flower, and you propose to consider very specific word.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 10:34
@ArnaudFournet Sure, "rose" is used as a metaphor for female genitalia in a wide range of languages, but I don't think that's directly relevant here, and may be confusing the OP. The issue is that Ukranian has borrowed two different words for the flower, not that it uses two different metaphors for the genitalia. (Although you're surely right that Ukranian probably has even more synonyms for that than for "rose", and that is relevant; bringing up the fact that "роза" might be one of them is the part that could be confusing.)
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:49
As a side note, do you think vulgar and euphemistic synonyms tend to persist even longer than synonyms in general? For example, we've had "prick" for 300+ years, "cock" for 400+ years, etc., and they show no signs of fading away even when newer words like "dick", "plonker", "willy", etc. became firmly established. And the only drift they ever seem to experience over the centuries is becoming more or less rude and/or childish; once a word means "penis" it seems to mean "penis" forever.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
I think situation with penis is different from situation with rose, because people often don't want to say penis and use other words to substitute it, but this is not the case with rose.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 9:40
well, is a rose not a metaphor for female genitalia ?
– Arnaud Fournet
Feb 2 at 10:20
Yes, it is, but I mean flower, and you propose to consider very specific word.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 10:34
@ArnaudFournet Sure, "rose" is used as a metaphor for female genitalia in a wide range of languages, but I don't think that's directly relevant here, and may be confusing the OP. The issue is that Ukranian has borrowed two different words for the flower, not that it uses two different metaphors for the genitalia. (Although you're surely right that Ukranian probably has even more synonyms for that than for "rose", and that is relevant; bringing up the fact that "роза" might be one of them is the part that could be confusing.)
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:49
As a side note, do you think vulgar and euphemistic synonyms tend to persist even longer than synonyms in general? For example, we've had "prick" for 300+ years, "cock" for 400+ years, etc., and they show no signs of fading away even when newer words like "dick", "plonker", "willy", etc. became firmly established. And the only drift they ever seem to experience over the centuries is becoming more or less rude and/or childish; once a word means "penis" it seems to mean "penis" forever.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:57
I think situation with penis is different from situation with rose, because people often don't want to say penis and use other words to substitute it, but this is not the case with rose.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 9:40
I think situation with penis is different from situation with rose, because people often don't want to say penis and use other words to substitute it, but this is not the case with rose.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 9:40
well, is a rose not a metaphor for female genitalia ?
– Arnaud Fournet
Feb 2 at 10:20
well, is a rose not a metaphor for female genitalia ?
– Arnaud Fournet
Feb 2 at 10:20
Yes, it is, but I mean flower, and you propose to consider very specific word.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 10:34
Yes, it is, but I mean flower, and you propose to consider very specific word.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 10:34
@ArnaudFournet Sure, "rose" is used as a metaphor for female genitalia in a wide range of languages, but I don't think that's directly relevant here, and may be confusing the OP. The issue is that Ukranian has borrowed two different words for the flower, not that it uses two different metaphors for the genitalia. (Although you're surely right that Ukranian probably has even more synonyms for that than for "rose", and that is relevant; bringing up the fact that "роза" might be one of them is the part that could be confusing.)
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:49
@ArnaudFournet Sure, "rose" is used as a metaphor for female genitalia in a wide range of languages, but I don't think that's directly relevant here, and may be confusing the OP. The issue is that Ukranian has borrowed two different words for the flower, not that it uses two different metaphors for the genitalia. (Although you're surely right that Ukranian probably has even more synonyms for that than for "rose", and that is relevant; bringing up the fact that "роза" might be one of them is the part that could be confusing.)
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:49
As a side note, do you think vulgar and euphemistic synonyms tend to persist even longer than synonyms in general? For example, we've had "prick" for 300+ years, "cock" for 400+ years, etc., and they show no signs of fading away even when newer words like "dick", "plonker", "willy", etc. became firmly established. And the only drift they ever seem to experience over the centuries is becoming more or less rude and/or childish; once a word means "penis" it seems to mean "penis" forever.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:57
As a side note, do you think vulgar and euphemistic synonyms tend to persist even longer than synonyms in general? For example, we've had "prick" for 300+ years, "cock" for 400+ years, etc., and they show no signs of fading away even when newer words like "dick", "plonker", "willy", etc. became firmly established. And the only drift they ever seem to experience over the centuries is becoming more or less rude and/or childish; once a word means "penis" it seems to mean "penis" forever.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30415%2fhow-long-in-a-language-several-words-for-the-same-notion-can-coexist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Having slightly different meanings is only one of the reasons synonyms coexist, so I don't think your edited-in example changes anything. I'd assume "троянда" either feels more "native" than "роза" (which I assume is borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Latin?), or feels more "Russian", either of which could presumably give many Ukranian speakers reason to prefer one or the other in different contexts. And certainly they sound quite different, which could at least make a difference in poetry, music, and rhetoric.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:03
Meanwhile, why are you asking this? Do you think Ukranian would be a better language if you eliminated one of these two words? If so, I'll bet you have a particular on you'd like to eliminate. So ask yourself why you chose that one, and that'll tell you the distinction between the two.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:05
@abarnert I would like to eliminate роза because it has several other meanings like compass rose. There are other too. While eliminating троянда would remove another root from the language which would make it poorer.
– Yola
Feb 2 at 5:23
2
But "compass rose" is named that because it looks like the flower. (I mean, I don't know the etymology specifically of the Ukranian term, but it's almost certainly the same as everyone else in Europe, ultimately going back to Latin "rosa ventorum", then dropping the borrowed or calqued "ventorum"/"wind" part when navigation switched to magnetic compasses.) If you eliminated "роза" for the flower, that connection would be gone, which would probably have an impact on both the learnability of "роза" for the compass rose, and the ways you can use it poetically and artistically.
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 5:37
1
@J-mster That's interesting. I was just guessing about the etymology. I guessed троянда would be borrowed into Common Slavic from Byzantine Greek, not borrowed into Ukranian from modern Greek—but I should know better; just because something seems more plausible at first glance doesn't mean you can assume it's true…
– abarnert
Feb 2 at 19:48