From: John Joyce Date: 2007-07-20T11:16:36+09:00 Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Religion (was: god 0.1.0 released) On Jul 19, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Hal Fulton wrote: > Chad Perrin wrote: >>> >> There was an early differentiation in how the spellings tended to be >> used. It was not necessarily a conscious delineation, and there was >> almost certainly a brief period when they were almost >> interchangeable, > > I don't think the period was brief; I think it was quite long. > >> but at the same time that would have likely coincided with a >> period when >> both spellings were associated with both meanings about equally, >> and your >> social and professional status would have signified which meaning you >> most often encountered. In other words, the point at which "demon" >> became as distinctly specific to a negative connotation would be the >> point at which "daemon" ceased being generally interchangeable with >> "demon". > > Tautological almost. But I'm saying that there was a divergence in > meaning, then later (not causally) a divergence in spelling. The > fact that it's not causal is what bothers me -- it makes the > attachment > of a meaning to a spelling *especially* arbitrary. > >> Keep in mind that preceding paragraph contains a bit more personal >> speculation than previous statements I've made about the subject. I >> haven't really investigated the etymology of "demon" and "daemon" >> thoroughly . . . but I'm fairly confident in the above speculations. >> Feel free to dismiss them as speculations. > > Likewise, I'm only saying what I believe to be true. > >> It's true that the distinction between the meanings of "daemon" and >> "demon" are not quite as clear-cut as those between "camber" and >> "chamber", for instance, but the point of the discussion of the >> differences in usage was related to whether or not "daemon" >> suffers the >> same sort of Christian cultural baggage as "demon" and "god", as >> terms to >> use for applying as names to software. For those purposes, the usage >> distinctions are quite thoroughly sufficient. The denotative >> differences >> in meanings and usages are pretty clear. > > But "daemon" certainly does have the same baggage as "demon" to people > who are knowledgeable enough. (The rest say "daymun" anyway.) > > The word "daemon" has been used for centuries in and out of Christian > circles, sometimes referring to evil spirits, sometimes not. > > Likewise the word "demon" has been used for centuries in and out of > Christian circles, sometimes referring to evil spirits, sometimes not. > > I think the (false) distinction between them is a modernism, I would > guess far less than a century old, and an incredibly arbitrary and > unnecessary modernism. > >> They didn't change *because of* a change in semantics, per se, but >> rather >> their deviation from each other was *concurrent with* a change in >> semantics. > > No, I don't believe it was. That is my point. I think. Or one of them > maybe. :) > > I think it's simply a matter of a word having different senses, > just as > a "check" can be a pencil mark, a piece of paper, the bringing of > something to a sudden stop, an action in chess, and so on. > > A "demon" or "daemon" strictly speaking is not necessarily evil nor > even > part of Christian mythos, just as a "check" in a chess game cannot be > taken to the bank. (We could choose always to spell the latter as > "cheque" -- but I would not support that! "Check" and "cheque" are > synonyms just as "demon" and "daemon" are.) > >>> The "radical descriptivist" on the other hand is like a doctor >>> who is >>> so obsessed with categorizing and studying a cancerous growth >>> that he >>> fails to consider it pathological and lets the patient die. >> >> . . . and that's basically the problem I have with the assertion that >> "demon" and "daemon" are culturally interchangeable. They aren't, >> even >> if some small number of people who are familiar with both terms >> actually >> treat them as interchangeable. > > Funny, I think we're using the same argument to disagree. > > To say, "Well, this is what people actually think" I call > descriptivist. > To say, "This is what the words actually mean" I call prescriptivist. > And as I said, I lean toward the latter. > > The terms actually are semantically (perhaps not culturally) > interchangeable. The "small number" of people are correct (as is not > unusual). I am reminded of the high school teacher who was nearly > fired > for using the word "niggardly" (and for anyone reading who is unaware, > that term is unrelated to race). > > To use "daemon" and "demon" to mean different things may be common > usage, but I consider it an outgrowth of ignorance.(I'm not calling > you ignorant, Chad, I'm just saying I think ignorance is the origin of > this false distinction.) > >>> As for me, I lean toward prescriptivism while recognizing the >>> extreme >>> objective value of descriptivism. I just think that language change >>> should occur slowly and with caution, and there should be >>> "standards" >>> that are not necessarily totally based on the vote of every wagging >>> tongue. >> >> Again . . . that's part of my reason for differentiating between >> "demon" >> and "daemon". If we don't, we run the risk of the meaning in >> usage that >> we (who know the difference) currently assign to "daemon" >> withering away >> entirely, leaving sort of a hole in the language, while increasing >> the >> potential for sloppiness in language by turning "daemon" into nothing >> more than a variant spelling. > > Fascinating. I say it is and always has been nothing more than a > variant > spelling, regardless of how many meanings the word may have (or how > some > people may tend to associate a certain meaning with a certain > spelling). > > In any case, no flames intended. A great pleasure to hold this > discussion with you. I don't think our opinions are reconcilable, but > I think I see your point. > > At any rate, this is way off-topic. > > > Cheers, > Hal > > > The spelling variant is the most plausible. English historically was extremely late at standardizing any spellings whatsoever.