Is it just me?

Post Reply New Topic

In what way do you see irony?

I believe in the standardization of language, and in preventing chaos.

Everything about the English language was in chaos in the 16th century. And that had to be remedied. And it was, in large measure, through the Dictionary of Samuel Johnson.

But even Samuel Johnson (yes, he was in the 18th century) realized that our language is fluid and evolves.

The placement of a word in the dictionary, where there was none before, involves a sort of Social Darwinist dynamic. A "survival of the fittest," if you will. "Selfie" was so apt, and so descriptive, that it "evolved" into a dictionary-worthy term--where, previously, it was "mere slang."

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 21 Jun 2017, 9:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Hahahaha.....I shall do my best.....?

Yeah, Samuel Johnson was pretty good in Pulp Fiction....not so great in Snakes on a plane though...

...

...


I made a joke

I know LOL.

Remember.....Aspies and autistic people in general might be "disordered" in how they interpret irony, sarcasm, jokes, etc.....but they are not totally oblivious

You should do your "worst" (as "baddest").

As long as you laughed lolol

You are strange. I can dig it.

Let me repeat myself , whichever romanization system you might choose you cannot turn the letter ''ξ'' into ''ch'' and claim to just have created a new word.
There is irony in praising the proper use of grammar and spelling, and intentionally use an incorrect word immediately after. Then again, ''trolling'' might be a more suitable word in this case.

What is "proper" in language tends to change over time.

If English were a static language, we would still be speaking something, today, which sounds somewhat German, and does not resemble Modern English in any way (especially as to pronunciation).

English has adopted Greek, Russian, etc. letters from alphabets other than the Roman alphabet, and has "created" Roman equivalents for those letters. We've been doing this since Time Immemorial.

The result might not be perfect in, say, Greek....but we tried.

This is the same principle underlying "borrowing" from other languages. We "borrowed" the word, and tailored it to English. It's a word of Greek origin, which sounds imperfectly Greek in English--but the "borrowed" word is Greek no more--so it shouldn't matter to a Greek speaker.

Greek, of course, has borrowed from English as well; it's a two-way street.

Also: Autistics are well-known for creating neologisms.

Will they become a dictionary-worthy word? Who knows?

And who cares? As long as an attempt to make the word comprehensible to others is made.

James Joyce's problem: after a while, he didn't seem to seek to make anything comprehensible.

I wonder which "it" you are digging.

Exactly! The neologism ''echypnophilia'' is mispelled to the point of incomprehension, since etymologically it has* to derive from the the greek word ''έξυπνος'' (romanized;éxypnos).

*in order to correspond with the meaning that was already attributed to it.

Last edited by Spyoon on 21 Jun 2017, 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think you are filling in the blanks that need not be filled. I didn't intentionally do anything and I am the farthest thing from a forum posting troll. But thank you for your opinion on what you think I am or what I am doing -which you are entitled to have...just like some of the opinions here are that language is fluid and that it changes and so no harm no foul. Again people are entitled to their own opinions and thoughts and conclusions etc and not everyone has to like or agree with them and it's okay if you don't in this case but assuming things are happening intentionally when they are not or that someone is trolling when they aren't Idk I would ask more questions next time....but that's just my opinion.

Furthermore:

"There are several things wrong with the word “sapiophile”:

The word is a “mongrel classicism”: a heterogenous composite of a Latin root (sap-) and a Greek root (phil-). Users and composers of Latin and Greek composite words should know that traditionally one must avoid attaching Latin tails to Greek heads. You can’t always do that: “Cinematographer” used to be linked to the use of photochemical film, so that “Videographer” was used to denote cinematographers that don’t use film, but an electronic system recording on videotape or on a digital storage medium. ‘Video’ is however a Latin root and ‘graph’ a Greek one.
(A bit of a no-no, really, but in this particular case it can’t be helped.)
The original literal meanings of “sapere” and “sapiens” are “to taste” and “tasting”. The meanings “to understand” and “intelligent” are metaphorical: the mind as a blob of intellectual taste buds. In a romantic and sexual context, the mongrel word sapiophile would mean: someone who likes performing cunnilingus.
“Sapiophile” is phonetically very similar to an extremely rude word that is legitimate anglicised Greek word, and not a half-Latin-half-Greek one, namely “Saprophile”, which means “attracted to rotting stuff”. (You could call the unfortunate creature a “postgrad necrophile”, or something )
There is a better “classicism” available, based on a homogenous composite. The correct anglicised Greek for someone who is attracted to intelligent ingenious brainy people is: Echypnophile. A Latin composite wouldn’t make any sense, since that would put the word outside of its family of the romantically attracted, which are all “-philes”.

Since the object of the attraction is “people that are intelligent”, you don’t need the root for “people” since people can be taken for default; you take the adjective that distinguishes them from people in general: Echypnos. Don’t substantivise! I mean: don’t translate “Intelligence” into Greek (Echypnada), since it is not the property that you are attracted to, but the people that possess it!"

Again, ''echypnos'' and ''echypnada'' are completely made up words and have no meaning. Perhaps you meant to type éxupnos(έξυπνος) and exypnáda(εξυπνάδα).

And I'm pretty sure you are mistaken once again

I'm a sapiosexual myself.....

And an Anglophile.

Who has a problem with combining, say, Latin-based prefixes and Greek-based suffixes?

James Joyce, a man who was ambivalent about classical uses of things, did that all the time.