Moderator: Forum Administrators
felix_ahlner wrote:Is language purity an important matter?
felix_ahlner wrote:Can too many loan-words somehow "destroy" a language?
felix_ahlner wrote:Should neologisms be preferred over loan-words, and are there any cases where loan-words are OK?
Mantaz wrote:I prefer original words, if they exists rather than loan-words that makes the vocabulary less original.
Lithuanian is pretty lucky on this since our language has really good opportunities in word building and this opportunity is often used. As an historically issolated language, it has a pretty ritch inherited vocabulary of original words as well.
felix_ahlner wrote:Swedish (and many other languages) was very influenced by French in the 18th and 19th century, borrowing tons of “educated” words. These are still found in the dictionaries and some have been used as technical terms.
Now, English floods us with their many “educated” Latin-rooted words. Since these words, or words that are very similar, already exist in the dictionaries, people see no reason for not using them. So the word avsikt is being replaced by intention, förbereda becomes preparera, bekräfta becomes konfirmera and many more.
I’ve heard that many Hindi neologism are almost only used for comical purposes (and I think that the same might be true for German, or what about lichtspiel or fernsprecher?). Nor are Tamil speakers very keen on their neologisms, they often use the English loanword instead.
Of course, every single speaker of a language will not easily fall into 1 or 2. But as I said, these are the polarized viewpoints. Do you agree with me on them?
Can you place your native tongue somewhere in between 1 and 2? Or are a language’s speakers too diverse to make generalizations like these? Is it easier for smaller languages to fall into 1, while international languages tend to fall into 2?
felix_ahlner wrote:1) “Our language is indeed one of the biggest and most fundamental parts of our people, our culture, our way of life and our history. It is worthy of preservation, and we will do whatever we can to keep using it in our daily conversation, no matter how much our daily environment may change.”
felix_ahlner wrote:2) “The most important thing about a language is to be understood, to communicate with each another. The more, the merrier. What is the point of making up new words for things that already have perfectly working names? More words are just causing unnecessary confusion.”
felix_ahlner wrote:Can you place your native tongue somewhere in between 1 and 2?
Saaropean wrote:felix_ahlner wrote:Can you place your native tongue somewhere in between 1 and 2?
Speaking for German here:
Of course not. Some people (especially wannabe intellectual philologists ) tend more towards #1, some (especially wannabee hip advertisers ) more towards #2.
amoeba wrote:I think it's interesting that some people consider only 40% of Ancient Greek vocabulary to be of Indo-European origin. The rest must come from the previous inhabitants of Greece. A creole language if there ever was one, but no one would argue that Ancient Greek was soiled with loanwords and barbarisms
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest