🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul20.165728.21746@cc.ic.ac.uk>, shan@ee.ic.ac.uk (Shan Parfilt) writes:
> In article <1992Jul17.105015.17987@cs.tu-berlin.de> wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:
>>shan@ee.ic.ac.uk (Shan Parfilt) writes:
>>
>>>>'Oui' is the mutilated form of vulgar Latin 'hoc ille' ('so it is') as used
>>>>in northern France. So is 'oc', its southern counterpart.
>>>>* Wolfgang
>>>
>>>'Oui' is not the 'mutilated' form of anything. It might however be the 
>>>'descendant' of something - or some such similarly objective, scientifically
>>>justifiable phrase. The 'vulgar' in 'Vulgar Latin' is another term like 
>>>'mutilated', although this particular phrase has come in time to stand
>>>for a particular type of Latin (ie non- 'standard').  
>>>
>>>Shan Parfitt
>>
>>You seem to imply some negative connotation, which I never intended of course.
>>I translated from a book, perhaps badly. The original term was 'verschliffen',
>>should I have used 'slurred'?
>>
>>Wolfgang
> 
> I would say that 'slurred' has a negative connotation aswell! What's wrong 
> with something like 'mutated' , 'modified', or something? Or 'descendant'?
> Shan

I would like to point out to Shan that the "vulgar" in Vulgar Latin did
not start out to be a demeaning term. All it meant was "folk" as in
folk Latin, and in fact it may be seen that Latin "vulgus" is etymologically
related to out word "folk."  It was later generations of snobs who
redefined the word vulgar, meaning "of the people," to mean "coarse."
Once again, I would say that connotations are relative to the audience
(see my other posting regarding this topic).