Rayman Pirate-Community

"Have your cake and eat it too" means well, but is so poorly constructed, since it sounds like it's describing a non-paradoxical order of events. How did this ever survive?

Funny, I was just thinking about that phrase last night! I guess the order of words could have been swapped since "have some cake" and "eat some cake" without context basically mean the same thing. Still bananas though...

All I can think of at this stage is how "the cake is a lie" thanks to Portal.

'You can't have your cake and eat it' is quite a good one because people don't understand it. As in, you can hold a nice cake and look at it, but you can't also eat it! It was switched around during the Brexit campaign to 'we CAN have our cake and eat it' and people bought it.

The cake quote has me thinking of the saying of “just desserts”.

It sometimes bothers me that the current phase of the moon is named "waning crescent". Like, "waning" means "shrinking", while "crescent" comes from the Latin word for "growing".

I know, I know, "etymology isn't destiny"...

PluMGMK wrote: Tue Jan 09, 2024 12:45 am It sometimes bothers me that the current phase of the moon is named "waning crescent". Like, "waning" means "shrinking", while "crescent" comes from the Latin word for "growing".

I know, I know, "etymology isn't destiny"...

That somehow reminds me of the discussion about the word "flammable" in Spanish. When you read "inflamable", people think it doesn't make sense at all because the prefix "in-" indicates a negation, but this time "etymology is destiny", because it comes from the Latin word "inflammare" . Languages are so confusing and beautiful at the same time...

When I was listening to the song "You Can Fly", I heard the lyrics "Think of Batman pooping snakes" and I jumped (outta my seat)!

DaveRattlehead wrote: Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:28 am That somehow reminds me of the discussion about the word "flammable" in Spanish. When you read "inflamable", people think it doesn't make sense at all because the prefix "in-" indicates a negation, but this time "etymology is destiny", because it comes from the Latin word "inflammare" . Languages are so confusing and beautiful at the same time...

Indeed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8mD2hsxrhQ

Good to know where the source material for this confusion comes from.

I remember reading a looooong debate somewhere online years ago, where somebody asked if "literally" being its own antonym was unique, and in response somebody mentioned "flammable" versus "inflammable". This led to endless back-and-forth of what "inflammable" is "supposed" to mean, what many people take it to mean, the etymology versus the surface analysis, etc… I don't think it really went anywhere

pompom454 wrote: Tue Jan 09, 2024 4:48 pm When I was listening to the song "You Can Fly", I heard the lyrics "Think of Batman pooping snakes" and I jumped (outta my seat)!

Worth noting that we also have a topic for misheard song lyrics

PluMGMK wrote: Tue Jan 09, 2024 12:45 am I know, I know, "etymology isn't destiny"...

I'd never heard that one before, but I couldn't agree more. There's been a tendency lately to try and "cancel" some words because of their etymology, while, in truth, barely anyone knows about their origin, and regardless, people use words for their current meanings, not the process that led them to be.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of linguistics. A lot of words with a shared etymology have come to have different or even opposing meanings: should we stop using them altogether because they "make no sense"?

But what can you do, it's obviously easier for people to make up false problems rather than set themselves to tackle the real issues out there.

Oh God, the "cancel culture"... Do they also get angry if you use a word because of its origin?

Just what you comment reminded me of a fairly recent topic of discussion in Spain. Many people have started commenting that we should stop using the word "negro" (it's the word we use for "black") because it's similar to the N-word (I really don't know if it comes from the French word, from the Spanish word or from the Latin word itself). Regardless of the origin, I think it's dumb to stop saying "negro" to refer to "black" just because it sounds like an offensive word in another language.

The economic conditions in this country suck and it turns out that the problem is whether "negro" offends? No comment.

Seriously? This is the name of a color (or rather, lack thereof ), what can possibly be more innocuous? It's even more stupid than not using a word because of its origin, because in this case, the origin is just fine, and it's the use of a derived term in another language that's actually the problem! Indeed, the word "negro" in English was directly borrowed from Spanish, which in turn derived its own "negro" from Latin "niger", which also gave French "noir" and Italian "nero", among many others.

However, I think the prize goes to the various controversies involving the word "niggardly". Yes, there is a whole Wikipedia article about this, and it is disheartening to see on how many occasions people's complete and utter lack of culture (this word is only phonetically similar to the infamous ethnic slur, etymologically unrelated and predates it by several centuries) led to outrage over the use of this innocuous word.

And last but not least, what about the recent(-ish) trend to rename words such as "blacklist" into alternatives such as "allowlist"? The idea here is that the word "black" should no longer be associated with negative things, but the symbolism of light and darkness predates the use of the word "black" to denote a race by millennia. After all, why do we call beige people white and brown people black? None of those words make any sense to begin with, so maybe that's what we should reconsider, rather than creating associations where obviously there should be none?

Hunchman801 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:11 pm After all, why do we call beige people white and brown people black? None of those words make any sense to begin with, so maybe that's what we should reconsider, rather than creating associations where obviously there should be none?

This is 100% my take on it too, even if we are both speaking from a position of privilege. Also, I find it strange that the word "denigrate" appears not to have been "cancelled" in this way…

If you want a good understanding of a problem, understand post-modernism, which is at the core of ALL modern "progressive" leftism.

This book (Cynical Theories) is not an easy read (too dry and technical), but it really ties all these "crap theories" beautifully together, and provides the necessary historical context.

Thanks for the suggestion! I have a big pile of books to read at the moment, but I'll be sure to add it to the list.