The word “schadenfreude” is a German term that literally translates to “harm-joy.” Know what the English word for “harm-Joy” is? It’s HARM JOY. But that sounds ridiculous. So we use schadenfreude.
The term “entrepreneur” comes from the French word entreprendre, meaning "to undertake”
Wanna know what we don’t use the term “undertaker” in place of entrepreneur?
These aren’t English words just because English people use them. For fuck’s sake. I would never have thought something this fundamentally basic would require an explanation.
JFC you people will argue about EVERYTHING except the pout that’s being made! ROFL!!!
I never once said anything about what a speaker of a word knows.
THEY ARE NOT ENGLISH WORDS. THEY ARE WORDS UNDERSTOOD AND USED BY ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE.
For fuck sake you people need to stop reaching for what we you think makes you sound smarter than you are and start reading what someone is actually saying.
Go ahead and list some real “English words” then. Try to form any kind of coherent conversation. A language is defined by the people who speak it; it grows and adapts and doesn’t fit into your neat boxes.
If you’re getting pedantic about what words came from where, we’re just speaking Proto-Indo-European (and all but ~12 root languages don’t exist). But you’re not arguing that, you’re just saying nonsense.
So answer my original question then. You know, the one that you dodged while calling me pretentious. Are the words I listed here English, or are they not?
Apparently all Japanese is English if an English person is speaking it.
coming immediately after
We’re not talking about those words, I don’t play whataboutism.
Whatever you say bruh.
But fine, we won’t refer to any other loanwords. Instead, I’ll ask you to generalize whatever your position is: that is, can you provide a consistent definition of “English word” that will include what you consider to be English words and exclude “entrepreneur” and “schadenfreude” and any other words that you don’t think are English?
Apparently all Japanese is English if an English person is speaking it.
The linguistic explanation for what you’re getting hung up on here is pretty straightforward (though whether you accept it or not remains to be seen), but I’ll save it for later in the conversation to keep our discussion on topic in the meantime.
THEY ARE NOT ENGLISH WORDS. THEY ARE WORDS UNDERSTOOD AND USED BY ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE.
And I’m asking you what the difference is. What is the metric by which you can determine that one word is an English word, and another word is merely a word understood by English-speaking people?
Since this seems to be yet another non-starter for a productive conversation, here’s what you’re missing:
A word is an English word when a native speaker of English unconsciously uses that word to another speaker of English with the expectation of being understood.
It doesn’t matter what the origin of a word is - it only matters that English speakers use the word with the natural expectation of being understood. So, “Let’s go do karaoke” is fine. “Karaoke” is a word of English. “I love eating sushi” is also fine. “Sushi” is a word of English. “Let’s hanasu about Lemmy” is not fine. “Hanasu” is not a word of English. This is why “eigo wo hanashiteimasu!” is not English.
(I realize that there is nuance here, for example an anime club using more Japanese words than the general populace. Here we either can say that a word like “bishounen” is a word of English in specific speech communities, or draw a general (but arbitrary) line that a word isn’t an English word until X percent of the population uses it fluently. We could also say that “bishounen” hasn’t fully become a word of English until that anime fan would use the word to a stranger on the street with the expectation of being understood. Either way, though, it remains the case that English words are defined by usage, not etymology.)
(Note that the same phenomena occur with more “learned” English terms that not everyone knows as well. That is, we see the same behavior between “bishounen” and a lesser-used English word like “adze”, just among different speech communities. As such, there’s no objectively useful reason to distinguish them, since they show the same pattern of behavior.)
It doesn’t matter when the word was borrowed either. Older borrowings and younger borrowings are all adapted to the phonology of English - note that Schadenfreude isn’t pronounced in English like it is in German, for example. That’s because it has become a word of English, and has changed phonologically in the process to fit the phonological constraints of English.
Further evidence that borrowings become words of their borrowing language is the fact that these words are treated identically to native words by both synchronic and diachronic grammatical processes. For example, sound change is just as regular for borrowed words as it is for native words. Borrowed nouns function in sentences the exact same way as native nouns do. Again, there is no objectively useful reason to distinguish older and younger borrowings, because they behave the same way.
Note, however, that “loanword” is still a useful categorical distinction, since linguistic reconstruction only works on inherited words, and does not work with loanwords or words otherwise created (past the point in history that they entered the linguistic system in question, at least).
But as for a useful categorical distinction between recent loanwords and older loanwords? As long as they’re fluently used by native speakers, there really isn’t one. (I’ll admit that this is a slight oversimplification - we can talk more about this if you’re interested.)
HOWEVER, that’s not to say that speakers don’t have intuitions about borrowed words, because they absolutely do, and that’s what I think you’re hitting on with your comments here.
“Schadenfreude” and “entrepreneur” feel more like borrowings than “cheese” and “justice” do. This is because the sounds of the word pattern like other words that we “recognize” as being German or French, and the ability to make these identifications are likely also correlated with type/degree of education. The ability to recognize borrowings is also heavily due to spelling conventions, but we have to remember that writing is not language. But that’s an essay for another day.
Ultimately, it’s important that we realize that the subjective ability to identify a word as a loan does not mean that the word behaves any differently from any other word, and the behavior of language is the only objectively useful means that we have of scientifically describing the structure of language.
Or maybe it’s not all that important to realize. But it is the most relevant point in this discussion. Feel free to follow up with any questions you might have.
I’ve spent more than ten years of my life studying this as my profession. I’m not trying to prove that I’m right here - that was never in question - I’m trying to use my knowledge to help you understand why you’re wrong, if you’ll let me.
I recommend that you read my giant wall of text if you’re at all interested in looking at language from a scientific perspective, and I’m happy to answer any further questions you have.
Also, I address “all words are English now” above if you’re interested.
Absorbing foreign words has been happening since forever in English. Example: Mirror is an English word, right? No, it’s a loan word from French, introduced after the Norman conquest in 1066. The English word is “looking-glass”.
Don’t have a cow (English), what’s your beef (French)?
You’re taking about absorbing. I’M NOT. I never was. You all are manufacturing a different argument for that smug satisfaction of amassing worthless internet points.
I have no shits to give about them or any of you! Lol. So do go on, feverishly pecking away paragraphs of rebuttals without ever considering that you all missed the fucking point entirely.
You go on and have the argument you wanted. You seem well versed in telling me what I’m saying, and I have better things to do than to constantly explain to you all that you’re creating an argument where there isn’t one.
bain sult as an gcaisleán a ionsaí!
(That’s English for “have fun storming the castle!” if you didn’t recognize it) 😂
Says the one trying to “um, ackshually” entrepreneur and schadenfreude out of being English words.
Just take the L, my dude or dudette. You’ll get 'em next time.
They’re not English words. lol!
The word “schadenfreude” is a German term that literally translates to “harm-joy.” Know what the English word for “harm-Joy” is? It’s HARM JOY. But that sounds ridiculous. So we use schadenfreude.
The term “entrepreneur” comes from the French word entreprendre, meaning "to undertake”
Wanna know what we don’t use the term “undertaker” in place of entrepreneur?
These aren’t English words just because English people use them. For fuck’s sake. I would never have thought something this fundamentally basic would require an explanation.
That’s why I never order an omelette at my diner. I just say “egg pancake” because they might not speak French.
You’re really dying on a stupid hill, more power to you
So by your logic, all Japanese is English if it’s an English person speaking it.
Talk about a stupid hill….
By my logic an English speaker will know what omelette means, they’d be confused if you ordered it with un jus d’orange, s’il vous plaît.
Something like 25-30% of English is native Anglo-Saxon and the rest is borrowed or adapted. By your logic, English doesn’t exist.
JFC you people will argue about EVERYTHING except the pout that’s being made! ROFL!!!
I never once said anything about what a speaker of a word knows.
THEY ARE NOT ENGLISH WORDS. THEY ARE WORDS UNDERSTOOD AND USED BY ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE.
For fuck sake you people need to stop reaching for what we you think makes you sound smarter than you are and start reading what someone is actually saying.
And by your logic;
英語を話しています！
Is perfect English.
Go ahead and list some real “English words” then. Try to form any kind of coherent conversation. A language is defined by the people who speak it; it grows and adapts and doesn’t fit into your neat boxes.
If you’re getting pedantic about what words came from where, we’re just speaking Proto-Indo-European (and all but ~12 root languages don’t exist). But you’re not arguing that, you’re just saying nonsense.
So answer my original question then. You know, the one that you dodged while calling me pretentious. Are the words I listed here English, or are they not?
We’re not talking about those words, I don’t play whataboutism, and this a fucking stupid argument.
As I said to someone else,
Apparently all Japanese is English if an English person is speaking it.
coming immediately after
Whatever you say bruh.
But fine, we won’t refer to any other loanwords. Instead, I’ll ask you to generalize whatever your position is: that is, can you provide a consistent definition of “English word” that will include what you consider to be English words and exclude “entrepreneur” and “schadenfreude” and any other words that you don’t think are English?
The linguistic explanation for what you’re getting hung up on here is pretty straightforward (though whether you accept it or not remains to be seen), but I’ll save it for later in the conversation to keep our discussion on topic in the meantime.
Fucking hilarious.
I’m still waiting for that generalization.
And I’m asking you what the difference is. What is the metric by which you can determine that one word is an English word, and another word is merely a word understood by English-speaking people?
Since this seems to be yet another non-starter for a productive conversation, here’s what you’re missing:
A word is an English word when a native speaker of English unconsciously uses that word to another speaker of English with the expectation of being understood.
It doesn’t matter what the origin of a word is - it only matters that English speakers use the word with the natural expectation of being understood. So, “Let’s go do karaoke” is fine. “Karaoke” is a word of English. “I love eating sushi” is also fine. “Sushi” is a word of English. “Let’s hanasu about Lemmy” is not fine. “Hanasu” is not a word of English. This is why “eigo wo hanashiteimasu!” is not English.
(I realize that there is nuance here, for example an anime club using more Japanese words than the general populace. Here we either can say that a word like “bishounen” is a word of English in specific speech communities, or draw a general (but arbitrary) line that a word isn’t an English word until X percent of the population uses it fluently. We could also say that “bishounen” hasn’t fully become a word of English until that anime fan would use the word to a stranger on the street with the expectation of being understood. Either way, though, it remains the case that English words are defined by usage, not etymology.)
(Note that the same phenomena occur with more “learned” English terms that not everyone knows as well. That is, we see the same behavior between “bishounen” and a lesser-used English word like “adze”, just among different speech communities. As such, there’s no objectively useful reason to distinguish them, since they show the same pattern of behavior.)
It doesn’t matter when the word was borrowed either. Older borrowings and younger borrowings are all adapted to the phonology of English - note that Schadenfreude isn’t pronounced in English like it is in German, for example. That’s because it has become a word of English, and has changed phonologically in the process to fit the phonological constraints of English.
Further evidence that borrowings become words of their borrowing language is the fact that these words are treated identically to native words by both synchronic and diachronic grammatical processes. For example, sound change is just as regular for borrowed words as it is for native words. Borrowed nouns function in sentences the exact same way as native nouns do. Again, there is no objectively useful reason to distinguish older and younger borrowings, because they behave the same way.
Note, however, that “loanword” is still a useful categorical distinction, since linguistic reconstruction only works on inherited words, and does not work with loanwords or words otherwise created (past the point in history that they entered the linguistic system in question, at least).
But as for a useful categorical distinction between recent loanwords and older loanwords? As long as they’re fluently used by native speakers, there really isn’t one. (I’ll admit that this is a slight oversimplification - we can talk more about this if you’re interested.)
HOWEVER, that’s not to say that speakers don’t have intuitions about borrowed words, because they absolutely do, and that’s what I think you’re hitting on with your comments here.
“Schadenfreude” and “entrepreneur” feel more like borrowings than “cheese” and “justice” do. This is because the sounds of the word pattern like other words that we “recognize” as being German or French, and the ability to make these identifications are likely also correlated with type/degree of education. The ability to recognize borrowings is also heavily due to spelling conventions, but we have to remember that writing is not language. But that’s an essay for another day.
Ultimately, it’s important that we realize that the subjective ability to identify a word as a loan does not mean that the word behaves any differently from any other word, and the behavior of language is the only objectively useful means that we have of scientifically describing the structure of language.
Or maybe it’s not all that important to realize. But it is the most relevant point in this discussion. Feel free to follow up with any questions you might have.
Your smug “I have to be right about this!” is overwhelming, so you win.
All words are English now.
I’ve spent more than ten years of my life studying this as my profession. I’m not trying to prove that I’m right here - that was never in question - I’m trying to use my knowledge to help you understand why you’re wrong, if you’ll let me.
I recommend that you read my giant wall of text if you’re at all interested in looking at language from a scientific perspective, and I’m happy to answer any further questions you have.
Also, I address “all words are English now” above if you’re interested.
Absorbing foreign words has been happening since forever in English. Example: Mirror is an English word, right? No, it’s a loan word from French, introduced after the Norman conquest in 1066. The English word is “looking-glass”.
Don’t have a cow (English), what’s your beef (French)?
You’re taking about absorbing. I’M NOT. I never was. You all are manufacturing a different argument for that smug satisfaction of amassing worthless internet points.
I have no shits to give about them or any of you! Lol. So do go on, feverishly pecking away paragraphs of rebuttals without ever considering that you all missed the fucking point entirely.
You go on and have the argument you wanted. You seem well versed in telling me what I’m saying, and I have better things to do than to constantly explain to you all that you’re creating an argument where there isn’t one.
bain sult as an gcaisleán a ionsaí!
(That’s English for “have fun storming the castle!” if you didn’t recognize it) 😂
So what is your point then?
lol. Nope.