Untranslatable Words & Comparing Emotions Across Languages

[Gray Richardson]

This website is interesting to me and may be interesting to others. It has some very nifty graphics comparing "emotionscapes" across languages and showing emotion words that have no equivalent in English.

There's also another chart showing new emotions created by the internet.

http://uniquelang.peiyinglin.net/01untranslatable.html

[Radius Solis]

Hmm. Lots of the words on the chart are, as far as I understand them correctly, synonyms in English. What exactly is supposed to be the difference between jolliness and cheerfulness? Between glee and elation? Between wrath and fury? Meanwhile it misses plenty of emotions, including at least one entire class: curiosity, interest, bafflement, uncertainty, confusion. Defiance also isn't on the chart, nor determination, nor anticipation, nor suspense.



And of course there's also emotions we don't have good compact words for, generally because they're too complex. The premise of the charts is rather Whorfian about equating what words we have with what emotions we have! Here are just a few of the others I experience and lack short descriptors for:
- the sense of emotional exhaustion whereby you just cannot bear to experience any more emotional content right now; being at the point where anything else and you're just going to snap and start screaming
- the bizarre urge to jump, when at a height with open space in front of you, tinged with fear that you'll actually do so and thus needing to step back or get away
- the quite self-conflicted feeling of wanting some particular disaster to happen because it would be so spectacular and interesting while also definitely not wanting it because of all the bad things it would cause (perhaps one for the internet category; reading wikipedia articles about earthquakes or flu pandemics tends to cause it)
- on being in a pleasant scene, the sad/wistful/longing/empty feeling of wishing it to be more fully experienceable, perhaps even wishing to somehow be it; the desperate hole inside left by life's not actually happening to a soundtrack; the painful knowledge that what you experience is all just transitory and can't be incorporated into yourself in some richer form than mere memory. (I get this one all the time.)

[Magb]

And of course there's also emotions we don't have good compact words for, generally because they're too complex. The premise of the charts is rather Whorfian about equating what words we have with what emotions we have! Here are just a few of the others I experience and lack short descriptors for:
- the sense of emotional exhaustion whereby you just cannot bear to experience any more emotional content right now; being at the point where anything else and you're just going to snap and start screaming
- the bizarre urge to jump, when at a height with open space in front of you, tinged with fear that you'll actually do so and thus needing to step back or get away
- the quite self-conflicted feeling of wanting some particular disaster to happen because it would be so spectacular and interesting while also definitely not wanting it because of all the bad things it would cause (perhaps one for the internet category; reading wikipedia articles about earthquakes or flu pandemics tends to cause it)
- on being in a pleasant scene, the sad/wistful/longing/empty feeling of wishing it to be more fully experienceable, perhaps even wishing to somehow be it; the desperate hole inside left by life's not actually happening to a soundtrack; the painful knowledge that what you experience is all just transitory and can't be incorporated into yourself in some richer form than mere memory. (I get this one all the time.)

I definitely recognize all of these. The first one may be covered reasonably well (though not perfectly) by "over-stimulation" or "emotional overload", but I can't think of anything succinct for the rest. The third one in particular feels like it deserves a word. Something like "disasterlust".

[Astraios]

It doesn't have numbness and emptiness and feeling of loss and stuff either.

[Gray Richardson]

Hmm. Lots of the words on the chart are, as far as I understand them correctly, synonyms in English. What exactly is supposed to be the difference between jolliness and cheerfulness? Between glee and elation? Between wrath and fury?

A very good question! I found another website for you that might be helpful in determining the differences between the meanings of words: http://dictionary.reference.com/

Meanwhile it misses plenty of emotions, including at least one entire class: curiosity, interest, bafflement, uncertainty, confusion. Defiance also isn't on the chart, nor determination, nor anticipation, nor suspense.

Another good question. It's possible that the words you have listed are not actually considered emotions. The lady who created the emotion charts was using Parrott's Classification of Emotions (2001). I haven't read Parrott, but it may be a matter, again, of definition. It might be instructive for you to read Parrott to see why he did or did not consider certain words as "emotions." A quick look in my Roget's finds curiosity, interest, bafflement, uncertainty and confusion grouped with the mental states, not with the emotions—except insofar as curiosity impinges on the emotion of desire (to know). Likewise, suspense is grouped with the mental states in its sense of uncertainty, but could be considered an emotion in its sense of anxiety or expectancy. Roget's groups defiance and determination with the words related to behavior and will. Roget's does, however, list anticipation as an emotion under expectation. Neither expectation or anticipation, however, are listed as emotions by Parrott. Curiously, Anticipation is listed as an emotion on Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions. I couldn't say why Plutchik and Roget's consider those to be emotions while Parrott does not. You might have to go to the source to find out why he excluded them.

And of course there's also emotions we don't have good compact words for, generally because they're too complex. The premise of the charts is rather Whorfian about equating what words we have with what emotions we have!

One could as easily criticize the usefulness of the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary for all the concepts one could think of that it does not contain words for. While I am familiar with Whorf, I'm not sure what you mean when you describe her premise as Whorfian; did you mean that to be dismissive of her work? Or descriptive in a way that you have not adequately elaborated?

I think it possible you have misunderstood her premise. Too me, it seems, she was looking for emotions that other languages have words to express that are not directly translatable into English. Then she tried to place them on a chart inspired by Parrott's Classification of Emotions. I don't believe she made any claims of her charts being comprehensive in expressing the totality of possible human emotions. She even says in the very first sentence that she is in the early stages of her research. She also has a link where you can "drop her a line." So, perhaps, if you have questions or suggestions for her you should contact her. You may be able to improve her research or offer her perspectives she had not considered. She might even be persuaded to add your newly invented emotions to her chart of new emotions created by the internet.

Meanwhile, I still think the charts are fascinating, even if disputed or incomplete. These charts could be very helpful to conlangers who are trying to consider the vocabulary of emotions that their languages express. It might also help them think "outside the box" to consider different emotions (or mental states or behaviors or intentions) that their culture might want to have words for that are not easily expressed in English.

[Gray Richardson]

By the way, for those who are interested, I read a fascinating book awhile back on the subject of emotions as they are expressed and interpreted in various languages and cultures:

Emotions Across Languages and Cultures - Diversity and Universals, by Anna Wierzbicka.

Wierzbicka is known for her work in semantic primes, and with this book she was exploring to what extent emotions are universal vs. to what degree emotions are expressed/felt/conceptualized differently by various languages and cultures.

She has an extensive chapter about the classification of emotions and "cognitive scenarios." Although, she expressly states that there are certain emotions her book does not try to address. It also has case studies of interesting emotion words that some languages use with emotional conceptions that are different from the conceptions used by anglophone culture. A very interesting read; I recommend it.

[Salmoneus]

I've no idea where, unfortunately, but I've run across some more practical 'emotion graphs' before, with actual axes and things. You know, 'warm' vs 'cold' emotions, positive vs negative, inward vs outward, etc. On of the interesting things was the observation that different languages care more about different axes of emotional differentiation - one language, for example, might have many emotion words that don't distinguish between positive and negative emotions that are the same in other regards (to give a practical example, a language might have a word for the emotion you feel when you cry, where English feels a need to distinguish between 'joy' and 'sadness'). Or a language might very carefully distinguish between emotions that are the direct response of something that has just happened to the person, vs emotions that are unprompted, or provoked by introspection, reflection or anticipation. Iirc one of the specific languages the article was about (austronesian, iirc) distinguished between emotions based on social status, as it were - that 'dominant' or 'in control' or 'responsible' emotions were distinguished from 'powerless', 'dependent' or 'subordinate' emotions (eg, 'fear for one's family' would be different from 'fear for oneself', or 'pride in one's children' would be different from 'pride in one's parents', or 'anger of a powerful man who will do something about it' would be different from 'anger of a man who can't do anything about it').

[Btw, I'd say that's a pretty important part of wrath vs fury: wrath is connected to at least the will to act, and often implies the power, whereas fury is frequently impotent, not even necessarily having any plan. Additionally, wrath is very other-centred - it is provoked by another and is directed at another, whereas fury can be self-provoked, or seemingly unprovoked, and need not be directed at any particular target but can be general, even universal, or self-focused - it is often uncontrolled, or self-defeating, whereas wrath is targeted and guided. Fury is the emotion of outbursts, storms, frenzies; wrath is the emotion of vengeance and retribution and rebuke. Wrath is the anger of the powerful; fury, of the helpless.]

[Radius Solis]

Hmm. Lots of the words on the chart are, as far as I understand them correctly, synonyms in English. What exactly is supposed to be the difference between jolliness and cheerfulness? Between glee and elation? Between wrath and fury?

A very good question! I found another website for you that might be helpful in determining the differences between the meanings of words: http://dictionary.reference.com/

If you had tested your assumption that a dictionary would help us distinguish meanings between those words, you would have found that it failed. Go try it, you'll see. The whole set of happiness-related words is circuitously self-interdefined.

Another good question. It's possible that the words you have listed are not actually considered emotions. The lady who created the emotion charts was using Parrott's Classification of Emotions (2001). I haven't read Parrott, but it may be a matter, again, of definition. It might be instructive for you to read Parrott to see why he did or did not consider certain words as "emotions." A quick look in my Roget's finds curiosity, interest, bafflement, uncertainty and confusion grouped with the mental states, not with the emotions—except insofar as curiosity impinges on the emotion of desire (to know). Likewise, suspense is grouped with the mental states in its sense of uncertainty, but could be considered an emotion in its sense of anxiety or expectancy. Roget's groups defiance and determination with the words related to behavior and will. Roget's does, however, list anticipation as an emotion under expectation. Neither expectation or anticipation, however, are listed as emotions by Parrott. Curiously, Anticipation is listed as an emotion on Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions. I couldn't say why Plutchik and Roget's consider those to be emotions while Parrott does not.

If we go by the dictionary, an emotion is defined, basically, as an affective mental state, as opposed to a cognitive or volitional one. So there's that, and some of the things I listed might be better put in one of the latter two categories. But treating those categories as mutually exclusive would be silly - obviously a great many mental states have components of two or all three types going simultaneously, and also obvious is that these are not independent of each other but rather certain states in one set tend to co-occur with certain states in another. There is an emotional coloration to everything I listed that is not covered under the chart.

As for the rest, you seem to object somehow to my having basically called the chart mediocre. About which I do not care. Or perhaps it was my lack of interest in the topic of "untranslatable" words - the very notion of which I do not grant. Notice how she somehow nevertheless managed to translate them in the relevant chart! Mistaking lack of a one-word equivalent to a foreign word for inability to translate it is linguistically uneducated. So both from an emotions perspective and from a linguistics perspective, the chart is oversimplistic and based on, well, mediocre conceptions of how things work.

Oh, there was also the "Whorfian" bit. I was referring to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Feel free to look it up.

[Gray Richardson]

If you had tested your assumption that a dictionary would help us distinguish meanings between those words, you would have found that it failed. Go try it, you'll see. The whole set of happiness-related words is circuitously self-interdefined.

I was only trying to be helpful to you. You seemed confused about the meanings of certain words, and the website I pointed you to is a very good resource for learning the meanings of words and the subtle differences between them. If you found the dictionary unhelpful, I would suggest again that you go to the source and read Parrott. I assume (without testing) that he defines the emotions he lists and gives some guidance as to how and why he distinguishes between them.

But treating those categories as mutually exclusive would be silly - obviously a great many mental states have components of two or all three types going simultaneously, and also obvious is that these are not independent of each other but rather certain states in one set tend to co-occur with certain states in another.

Well I wouldn't say it was silly. It might be a perfectly valid point of view. I haven't read Parrott, so I am not in a position to judge or defend him. But neither do I think your own point is necessarily obvious, although I'm sure an argument could be made.

There is an emotional coloration to everything I listed that is not covered under the chart.

You seem preoccupied with things that aren't on the chart.

Firstly, I don't necessarily agree that the things you have listed even belong on the chart. I don't necessarily disagree either, it's just that between you and Parrott, I have a sense that Parrott knows more about the subject than you.

Secondly, I don't understand your preoccupation with finding fault. Why not evaluate the chart on the information it does contain rather than the information it does not? As I said above, I assume (without testing) that you could just as easily think up concepts which the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary does not contain words to describe. Would that render the book useless for it's intended purpose? I think not.

The charts the researcher has presented give some very nice information in a graphic format that depicts a broad spectrum of human emotion words and how they relate to one another. She then indicates positions where the untranslatable emotion words from other languages might fit on Parrott's spectrum. I think that's pretty nifty.

Lastly, even if I were to agree with you, for the sake of argument, that these charts are incomplete or disputed, it still doesn't mean that these charts are not very useful for what they are. I think these emotion-maps might help conlangers consider and visualize a broad spectrum of emotions for possible inclusion in their lexicon. These charts could inspire ideas on how concultures might divide up those emotionscapes differently to create emotion words that reflect different emotional conceptions than our own.

As for the rest, you seem to object somehow to my having basically called the chart mediocre. About which I do not care.

I didn't object, I merely asked you to explain yourself.

Or perhaps it was my lack of interest in the topic of "untranslatable" words - the very notion of which I do not grant.

It's perfectly fine if you have no interest, but then why post off-topic in a thread you have no interest in?

Notice how she somehow nevertheless managed to translate them in the relevant chart! Mistaking lack of a one-word equivalent to a foreign word for inability to translate it is linguistically uneducated. So both from an emotions perspective and from a linguistics perspective, the chart is oversimplistic and based on, well, mediocre conceptions of how things work.

Again, I think you are missing the point. Of course these foreign words and concepts are not untranslatable. She is merely using that word as a shorthand to say that these words have no single-word translation into English, and as such are not emotions that are in our typical verbal repertoire. These are emotions that are not familiar to us, and ones that we (anglophones) would not be likely to even think to place on a chart of the spectrum of our emotions. Her research is attempting to identify some of these concepts and bring them to our awareness. A worthy goal, in my estimation.

Oh, there was also the "Whorfian" bit. I was referring to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Feel free to look it up.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As I said, I am familiar with Whorf. I don't need to look it up. I can think of lots of different ways in which her research is Whorfian. I simply was inquiring what you meant by your own use of the word, please elaborate.

[Melend]

Hmm. Lots of the words on the chart are, as far as I understand them correctly, synonyms in English. What exactly is supposed to be the difference between jolliness and cheerfulness? Between glee and elation? Between wrath and fury?

As an English speaker, I'd say:

1) whether the subject is likely to laugh or chuckle as a result of their mood
2) whether the emotion is specific or diffuse - elation implies a sort or of disassociation or shock due to surprise, while glee is intense and related to a particular topic
3) the degree to which the emotion informs vs. determines action - wrath is measured, while fury isn't controlled well or at all. For example, God is said to be wrathful, but is never said to be furious or infuriated.

One of the nice bits about having so many synonyms is that they can adopt fine distinctions in meaning - but making those distinctions explicit can be rough.

[Imralu]

1) whether the subject is likely to laugh or chuckle as a result of their mood

Also an English speaker, and I have no idea which one that describes. To me, cheerfulness is a mood best summed up by Felix the Cat walking along while whistling, and jolliness is not a mood, but a peculiar kind of cheerful disposition only found among people who are mildly overweight.

2) whether the emotion is specific or diffuse - elation implies a sort or of disassociation or shock due to surprise, while glee is intense and related to a particular topic

Agreed, although I also think "elation" is quite about something too.

3) the degree to which the emotion informs vs. determines action - wrath is measured, while fury isn't controlled well or at all. For example, God is said to be wrathful, but is never said to be furious or infuriated.

Agreed, but I've also always thought of wrath, not as the emotion (like fury), but as the vengeful destruction released because of the feeling.

[TzirTzi]

Notice how she somehow nevertheless managed to translate them in the relevant chart! Mistaking lack of a one-word equivalent to a foreign word for inability to translate it is linguistically uneducated. So both from an emotions perspective and from a linguistics perspective, the chart is oversimplistic and based on, well, mediocre conceptions of how things work.

Again, I think you are missing the point. Of course these foreign words and concepts are not untranslatable. She is merely using that word as a shorthand to say that these words have no single-word translation into English, and as such are not emotions that are in our typical verbal repertoire. These are emotions that are not familiar to us, and ones that we (anglophones) would not be likely to even think to place on a chart of the spectrum of our emotions. Her research is attempting to identify some of these concepts and bring them to our awareness. A worthy goal, in my estimation.

Oh, there was also the "Whorfian" bit. I was referring to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Feel free to look it up.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As I said, I am familiar with Whorf. I don't need to look it up. I can think of lots of different ways in which her research is Whorfian. I simply was inquiring what you meant by your own use of the word, please elaborate.

By making the chart she is implying that the presence vs absence of single lexical items to denote these concepts in a lexicon is significant: as you say, that these emotions are not familiar to us anglophones and wouldn't come to mind if we were to try to classify emotions. I think that's the point of contention.

There are two ways of interpreting this significance. Perhaps she's implying that this particular aspect of language is an effective mirror of culture: but the idea that the mere presence vs absence of a one-word way of expressing a concept is an effective measure of that concept's place in the speakers' culture is simplistic. Alternatively, perhaps she's implying that language is affecting its speakers and that it is these lexical items that actually make the concepts available to speakers at all: and this would be Sapir-Whorfism, generally accepted to be wrong.

At the end of the day I still think it's a pretty chart and probably a worthwhile exercise in the right conceptual framework--it's just that it rather implies the wrong conceptual framework.

[Legion]

Gray Richardson > stop trying to defend the thesis of authors whom you haven't read [especially when your main mode of argumentation to do so is to systematically assume that your opponent is an idiot who just doesn't get the point being made (yes this is what you're doing, no matter how politely and nicely you think you're framing it), when you are yourself unable to even explain clearly what the point is in the first place], this will save us a lot of time, and will save yourself from a lot of further embarassement.

[Basilius]

Or perhaps it was my lack of interest in the topic of "untranslatable" words - the very notion of which I do not grant.

Radius, this remark of yours made me curious... How much experience do you have as a translator? I don't mean anything exotic, just translation from another European language like Italian or Polish?

For having some experience of that sort myself, I'd say: **everything** is untranslatable. A good translation is essentially a retelling.

Alternatively, perhaps she's implying that language is affecting its speakers and that it is these lexical items that actually make the concepts available to speakers at all: and this would be Sapir-Whorfism, generally accepted to be wrong.

I thought it was its strong version that was generally accepted to be wrong?

Legion > You certainly didn't try to frame your point nicely, while speaking to someone who hasn't said anything particularly offensive or particularly stupid, at least in this thread. Why?

Please note that I don't ask why this has become the norm on ZBB. I'm asking someone whom I know as a reasonable person from other discussions about their specific choice in this particular situation.

[Legion]

Basilius > Radius asked what was the difference between several similar sounding kinds of emotions that were mentionned. He was asking a technical, psychological question, and expected a similar answer.

Instead, Gray R. implied, pretty clearly, that Radius was an idiot who didn't know what words meant and he needed to check a dictionary.

At this point it could have been a misunderstanding; but when Radius explained more clearly what he wanted and also pointed out that the dictionary definitions were useless even if the question Radius had asked had been the one Gray R. was answering, because they are circular and refering to each others, Gray R. restated the exact same point as before, implying again that Radius just needed to learn what words meant.

The rest of his post follows the same logic: he never adresses any objection, instead dismissing them as flaws of the objectionner, or implying that they should just read the full thesis he is defending, even though he hasn't read it himself.

The only thing that changed compared to the previous thread he started is that he did take notice of the negative reaction his behaviour triggered back then... but he misidentified the reason, thinking it was just a problem of being polite. Now indeed he is very polite, but still intellectually dishonest and contemptuously dismissive of contradictors, a behaviour that the added hypocrite layer of niceness only succeeds in making more obnoxious.

[TzirTzi]

Alternatively, perhaps she's implying that language is affecting its speakers and that it is these lexical items that actually make the concepts available to speakers at all: and this would be Sapir-Whorfism, generally accepted to be wrong.

I thought it was its strong version that was generally accepted to be wrong?

Yes, you're quite right there, I was being rather careless with my terminology . Despite the terminology of discrete "strong" vs "weak" Sapir-Whorfism, I wonder if it would be better seen as a cline, from language exerting absolute, categorising influence on thought, through language influencing strong but not absolute restrictions on thought, to language influencing thought merely to the effect of mild tendencies which are easy to overcome through conscious consideration. So if one is to object to an argument as being based in Whorfism, it implies that one feels it's towards the strong end of that cline...

[Salmoneus]

The problem is, the only good answer to Radius was to tell him to learn the language better. These words are clearly different, and it's not easy to precisely define every nuance of every word for him, when they're words that native speakers manage to use without difficulty. He just has to observe their use more closely.

Actually, the real problem is that you do nothing on this board other than go around trying to start argument with people - in this case, with somebody who hadn't said anything at all for an entire week before you went at him!




On the words themselves, one thing that I'm not sure has been mentioned: jolly/cheerful and elation/glee also, imi, embody a loose/tight or low/high sort of distinction. Feeling "jolly" (and yes I agree that nowadays it's mostly used as a characteristic, though imd I can still just about use it as an emotion) is a bubbly, bouncy, heightened emotion, whereas feeling "cheerful" is a more calm, relaxed emotion. Likewise, "elation" is something that includes an intense relief, an element of serenity and unconcern, an impassibility; whereas "glee" is intense, heightened, concentrated, agitated. I think this may be why 'glee' is more readily associated with its causes than elation is, because glee is tightly focused. Someone experiencing glee may be on the edge of their seat, bubbling over with talk or laughter, finding it hard to sit still... someone experiencing elation may be more likely to be leaning back, looking up, being quiet, not necessarily paying full attention to the things going on around them they're so enveloped in satisfaction.
Secondarily, glee is often though not always associated with schadenfreude and other socially negative reasons for happiness. It's quite an egoistic sort of thing, glee. If you tell someone they should stop being so elated, you're telling them there's actually a reason for concern they haven't thought of yet... whereas if you tell them to stop being so gleeful, you're telling them you find their expressions of emotion annoying, and you're often implying that they're being self-centred or callous.
That's my impression, anyway.

[Basilius]

Instead, Gray R. implied, pretty clearly, that Radius was an idiot who didn't know what words meant and he needed to check a dictionary.

At this point it could have been a misunderstanding; but when Radius explained more clearly what he wanted and also pointed out that the dictionary definitions were useless even if the question Radius had asked had been the one Gray R. was answering, because they are circular and refering to each others, Gray R. restated the exact same point as before, implying again that Radius just needed to learn what words meant.

OK, Gray R. could be more helpful, but to be fair, actually checking the dictionary definitions isn't generally that futile, and wouldn't be in this instance. In particular, the entries for "wrath" and "fury" in the dictionary G.R. gave a link to don't refer circularly to each other, but both refer to "anger":

FURY

1. unrestrained or violent anger, rage, passion, or the like: The gods unleashed their fury on the offending mortal.
2. violence; vehemence; fierceness: the fury of a hurricane; a fury of creative energy.
3.Furies, Classical Mythology . minor female divinities: the daughters of Gaea who punished crimes at the instigation of the victims: known to the Greeks as the Erinyes or Eumenides and to the Romans as the Furiae or Dirae. Originally there were an indefinite number, but were later restricted to Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone.
4.a fierce and violent person, especially a woman: She became a fury when she felt she was unjustly accused.

WRATH

1. strong, stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire.
2. vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger.

So from comparing the entries one can infer that the difference (in referring specifically to emotional states) is about stressing the "unrestrained or violent" component vs. the "strong, stern, or fierce" component - which could have served a starting point for a more concrete further discussion.

[Legion]

Actually, the real problem is that you do nothing on this board other than go around trying to start argument with people - in this case, with somebody who hadn't said anything at all for an entire week before you went at him!

I'll trust your expertise as a grand professional of the activity of doing nothing on this board other than go around trying to start argument with people.

Remember the last time you've been called out for being a bully? [hint: it was two days ago — and you haven't retorted, which is Salmoneus' code for admitting you are wrong, since doing so explicitely instead of just walking away silently pretending nothing happened seems to be above your physical capabilites — not that the lesson was learned anyway, since you were back it even today (yeah good job attacking someone for not understanding tribalism , what a fine example of liberal!)]

---

Maybe we should all calm down and have a look back at some excerpts of Gray R's post:

A very good question! I found another website for you that might be helpful in determining the differences between the meanings of words: http://dictionary.reference.com/

Another good question. It's possible that the words you have listed are not actually considered emotions. The lady who created the emotion charts was using Parrott's Classification of Emotions (2001). I haven't read Parrott, but it may be a matter, again, of definition.

Assume his interlocutor is an idiot: yes
Is smug: yes
Dismissive of any form of contradiction: yes
Doesn't actually answer contradicting claims: yes
Hasn't even read the work he's defending: yes
Thin varnish of politeness above it all: yes

Hey Sal, it looks like we found your long lost brother!

[Basilius]

Legion: No, I don't understand. I mean, I don't see how doing something *worse* than what people who irritated you did can be helpful. Call it hypocrisy or whatever, but for me you've just illustrated how politeness can indeed be valuable. (OK, I didn't check the threads you're referring to, 'cause you've advertised them negatively, kind of, and I'm not interested in shit).

Also, I'm left with the impression that G. R. did know what he meant when he referred to dictionaries; and I can imagine several reasons, none of them having anything to do with treating one's opponents as idiots, for him not to helpfully offer some more links or quotes &like.

After all, "be fucking specific or fucking shut up" is a very helpful principle but not an innate instinct among humans.

And I can't comment on what you said about Salmoneus because (1) he's a mod and (2) I've certainly seen him being inadequately rude before but (3) in this thread he's contributed something quite relevant and sound.

[Legion]

The problem with what you just said is that, in this particular thread, while I have indeed very straightforwardly expressed what I thought, I have also been uncaracteristically not rude, I have simply made argumented statements about what I think GR is doing; these are probably not pleasant statements,nor are they necessarily accurate, but they are certainly not rude.

I have done so because I was feeling he was being insulting and dismissive under the excuse of being polite (which explains why Sal flew to his defense, since he loves doing just that)

Me being rude would be more like outright calling him a smug asshole and a retard. Which I can assure you I haven't done in this thread.

[Basilius]

[Btw, I'd say that's a pretty important part of wrath vs fury: wrath is connected to at least the will to act, and often implies the power, whereas fury is frequently impotent, not even necessarily having any plan. Additionally, wrath is very other-centred - it is provoked by another and is directed at another, whereas fury can be self-provoked, or seemingly unprovoked, and need not be directed at any particular target but can be general, even universal, or self-focused - it is often uncontrolled, or self-defeating, whereas wrath is targeted and guided. Fury is the emotion of outbursts, storms, frenzies; wrath is the emotion of vengeance and retribution and rebuke. Wrath is the anger of the powerful; fury, of the helpless.]

I am not a native speaker, but "helpless fury" feels a bit unusual.

Cannot it be simply more control / less control?

[zompist]

Gray was already reprimanded for similar behavior in the TED Talk thread, so all this fury is somewhat misplaced.

As for dictionary.reference.com, Radius specifically mentioned the happiness-related words, and he's right that some of the definitions there are pretty bad. E.g.:

cheer
3.something that gives joy or gladness; encouragement; comfort: words of cheer.
4.a state of feeling or spirits: Their good cheer overcame his depression.
5.gladness, gaiety, or animation: full of cheer and good spirits.

A state of feeling! How useful.

cheerful:
1.full of cheer; in good spirits: a cheerful person.
2.promoting or inducing cheer; pleasant; bright: cheerful surroundings.
3.characterized by or expressive of good spirits or cheerfulness: cheerful songs.

Why bother to have definitions of derived words if you're just going to reference the root?

jolly
1.in good spirits; gay; merry: In a moment he was as jolly as ever.
2.cheerfully festive or convivial: a jolly party.
3.joyous; happy: Christmas is a jolly season.

elation
a feeling or state of great joy or pride; exultant gladness; high spirits.

glee
open delight or pleasure; exultant joy; exultation.

joy
1.the emotion of great delight or happiness caused by something exceptionally good or satisfying; keen pleasure; elation: She felt the joy of seeing her son's success.
2.a source or cause of keen pleasure or delight; something or someone greatly valued or appreciated: Her prose style is a pure joy.
3.the expression or display of glad feeling; festive gaiety.
4.a state of happiness or felicity.

glad
1.feeling joy or pleasure; delighted; pleased: glad about the good news; glad that you are here.
2.accompanied by or causing joy or pleasure: a glad occasion; glad tidings.
3.characterized by or showing cheerfulness, joy, or pleasure, as looks or utterances.

There is quite a lot of circularity (joy and elation refer directly to each other, as do joy and glad), and the definitions don't get so far as Saussure— they offer no guide to when each word would be used in opposition to the others.

[TzirTzi]

I am not a native speaker, but "helpless fury" feels a bit unusual.

As a native speaker, "helpless fury" feels very reasonable to me - but, better than that, have a look at the ngrams data:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... g=3&share=

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... g=3&share=

We can see that the bigrams "helpless fury" and "helpless anger" are pretty similar in frequency (compared with rather less frequent "helpless wrath"), but if we look at the tokens "fury", "anger" and "wrath" in isolation we find that "fury" and "wrath" pattern together as much less frequent than "anger" - this rather implies that appearing with the modifier "helpless" is more typical of "fury" than of "wrath" or "anger".

[Pthagnar]

And I can't comment on what you said about Salmoneus because (1) he's a mod and (2) I've certainly seen him being inadequately rude before but (3) in this thread he's contributed something quite relevant and sound.

I shouldn't let (1) stop you. Don't you think using petty authority to silence people and create an environment in which you can bully people with relative impunity is worse than doing so without that?