Hacker News Reader

Comment by eclectic29 | Hacker News Reader

Slightly off topic: Learnt a new word today 'vulgarization' which seems to have a completely different meaning from the obvious. Thanks.

View on HN

Note that, in the abstract, “vulgar” means “common” (as in “vulgar latin”). Indeed, its negative connotations come from that same sense: “common” people are unrefined.

The association between vulgarity and propriety (and class distinctions) sort of ruins that word, particularly in the english speaking west.

I wonder if that's as big of a problem in the romance languages (which all treat left/right the same way - left = bad, right = good)

Indeed: are you sinister or dexterous?

In French the same word for “right” means the same notion in English for

- direction

- straight ahead

- civics

- propriety

As a left-handed contrarian, I’ve always enjoyed that sinister and left handed go hand in hand.

Yes, in Spanish vulgar is used as inappropriate. We have "el vulgo" (el pueblo, the people), which kinda teaches you the correct meaning, popular, unrefined. But "vulgo" is seldomly used.

This goes pretty deep in English. I'd argue that the semantic intention behind the colloquial usage of "vulgar" is nearly inseparable from the "class distinction" baggage it carries. Consider these common synonyms and their etymologies:

- Rude: "coarse, rough, unfinished, unlearned" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/rude#etymonline_v_16610)

- Mean: "shared by all, common, general" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/mean#etymonline_v_12495)

And even synonyms like obscene, indecent, or disgusting, which don't evoke this distinction directly, still almost always ultimately rely on separating things based on what is "good" and "clean" according to class distinctions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com