Philosophy Now Forum

Some would say slang words. Some would say vulgar words. For me it would mainly be their etymology - their hidden meaning.

For example we have the word sabotage which, in part, means to disrupt the operations of an organization such as a business or military effort. When you check out its etymology, you'll see it derives from the french word for shoe, sabot. During the 19th century, French factory workers in their effort to shut down businesses would take their shoes and throw them into the machines to derail them.

Another case would be the words invention and inventory. Is it an accident that they look so much alike even though they have completely different meanings? Let's look up their etymologies:

Invention: "c. 1400, 'devised method of organization,' from Old French invencion (13c.) and directly from Latin inventionem (nominative inventio) 'faculty of invention; a finding, discovery,' noun of action from past participle stem of invenire 'devise, discover, find,' from in- 'in, on' (see in- (2)) + venire 'to come' (see venue)."

Inventory: "early 15c., from Old French inventoire "inventory, detailed list of goods, catalogue," from Medieval Latin inventorium (Late Latin inventarium) "list of what is found," from Latin inventus, past participle of invenire "to find" (see invention). The verb is first recorded c. 1600, from the noun."

Since this is a British website, you may have a list of your favorite British words you can add on to this thread or make up a thread of your own. So which words become so popular and why would be a good topic for philosophical investigation? Is it in part the way they sound or some other reason?

PhilX

Schlonged! Donald Trump says it, and the chattering classes can't talk about anything else today.

Interestingly, even the WaPo agrees that "schlonged" was used by a liberal to describe the 49 state beating taken by Mondale-Ferraro in 1984. In the end, this is yet another media hysteria about nothing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... all-along/

This is an interesting study in what makes a word interesting.

Although the etymology of words is interesting it really makes no sense to think of words as having a specific meaning beyond the interpretation of the user of them. As I writer I've always been conscious of the fact that once words are committed to print they pass out of the ownership of the writer of them and become the property of the reader. There is no valid reason to assume that the intended meaning of these words and the interpreted meaning of the reader should be one and the same, and often they aren't. We see this a lot in forums such as this where people can be hurling all sorts of abuse at each other for being idiots when in fact both parties are saying essentially the same thing in different forms of language. The sad fact is that we all read words with an instinctive confirmation bias which favours our own world-view and often disregards that of the writer. We can do our best to guard against this but none of us is exempt from it and it's a useful fact to keep in mind.

Another point worth remembering is that the meaning of words in the common usage changes over time, even to the point of acquiring an entirely opposite meaning. When I went to school a flammable material was one which does not burn and an inflammable material was one which does. This is the entirely correct English usage of these words but in reality both of these words are nowadays regarded as entirely synonymous.

They're interesting based on the context in which words are employed, not necessarily their dictionary definitions per se. It's the metaphoric power of words to adapt to an idea - while not infringing on its accepted singular definition(s). It becomes, in effect, more prismatic as determined by the other words which surround it.

To me, it's the way words can morph meaning according to context and figuratively escape the confines of a dictionary.