From: Chad Perrin Date: 2007-07-21T05:51:42+09:00 Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Religion (was: god 0.1.0 released) On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:04:51AM +0900, 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. That depends on your comparison. If you're comparing it to the period of time during which you weren't aware there was a preceding, Greek meaning to the term, then yeah, it's long. If you compare it to the time when the Greek used the word before it was corrupted by Christian cultural influence, then no, it wasn't very long at all. > > > 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. The fact it was (probably) not causal is immaterial to the point of the discussion. It's also likely that the divergence in spelling occurred *before* the divergence in meaning. In any case, attachment of meaning to sound is, in some respect, *always* arbitrary. Really -- think about the sounds of "the" for a moment. > > > 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.) Actually . . . the weight of negative baggage is greatest with those who are *not* knowledgeable, and thus do not know "demon" and "daemon" are distinct words. Regardless of pronunciation errors, it is those who don't know about the origins of the terms that tend to think "daemon" is just "demon" with an A, and it is those who *do* know something about the history of the terms that think "Oh, well, they're not the same thing." I can't even sort out where one gets the idea that the more-knowledgeable would be those most prone to thinking "daemon" implies Christian cultural baggage, thus imagining that a persistent process on a Unix system is named after the Devil's helpers. > > The word "daemon" has been used for centuries in and out of Christian > circles, sometimes referring to evil spirits, sometimes not. . . . but mostly not. > > Likewise the word "demon" has been used for centuries in and out of > Christian circles, sometimes referring to evil spirits, sometimes not. . . . but mostly for evil spirits, increasingly so over time. > > 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. The distinction between them, as I tried to point out earlier in the passage you said was "almost a tautology", basically arose with the assignment of strong negative connotation. In other words, it is precisely because of the distinction between them that "demon" took on a stronger negative connotation. As for the distinction being a "modernism", there's no way to argue against that, since anything that is now, but wasn't at some point in the past, can be called a modernism. The key point, one might argue, is that the spelling "daemon" has only really survived *as a way to hold on to the older meaning*. In other words, if it weren't for the linguistic need of the distinction, there'd only be the word "demon". Note the original Greek, where even "daimon" has come to mean the same thing, connotatively, as "demon": without a second spelling, there is primarily only the single meaning. > > 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.) I think you're failing to differentiate between analogy and proof, here. > > >> 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 problem here is that the meaning associated with "demon" -- the negative "devil's helpers" sort of meaning -- is an acquired, connotative meaning. One might even say that, to a transliteration of the original Greek term, *any* assignment of the strictly negative meaning can be regarded as a descriptivist meaning. Thus, my prescriptivist leanings lead me to keep using the term "daemon" (an academic transliteration of the Greek) for the original meaning, and "demon" for the negative Christian meaning that likely arose around the same time as that spelling. > > 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.) That's the point, though -- using them to mean different things is *not* common usage, because *commonly* people aren't aware of the existence of "daemon" as a word, and when they become aware of it they tend to use it as interchangeable with "demon". It's a "small number" that uses it as interchangeable because it's caught between those with an academic understanding of the origins of the words and those who aren't even aware there's a separate spelling. > > >> 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). If anything, it is "demon" that is, and always has been, a variant spelling -- in which case, you should be fighting for the original meaning, and not the Christian cultural meaning to be assigned to both. > > 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. Ditto . . . except that I still hold out hope that there's some possibility of arriving at a greater agreement, somehow, even if only in terms of being more clear on the point of differentiation between our opinions. > > At any rate, this is way off-topic. True, that. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Rudy Giuliani: "You have free speech so I can be heard."