Etymology, meaning, and context

Their etymology might be similar, Kallithrix, but in English transparent and diaphanous mean different things. Transparent means see-through; diaphanous means light, and/or almost-see-through, and/or delicate. They're close but not interchangeable.

Right. Window glass is transparent, but diaphanous? I don’t think so.

Introversion said:

Right. Window glass is transparent, but diaphanous? I don’t think so.

Click to expand...

Obviously what I intended to say was semitransparent rather than transparent. My point was that words have texture to them. Diaphanous has a very different feel to it than semitransparent or translucent. Now, would the use of diaphanous alone constitute 'pretty' prose? Not in itself I believe.

Textured and descriptive prose has it's place, but reading an entire novel written that way would would be IMO exhausting.

Kallithrix said:

But diaphanous will always get my vote,

Click to expand...

And it's certainly more euphonius. Though it does have shades of meaning that transparent lacks. Word choice does matter.

Kallithrix said:

I would be absolutely correct to call my windows diaphanous - διαφανής is translated as 'transparent' in Liddell and Scott. So English is wrong

Click to expand...

Heh. Pedants and bureaucrats, rejoice! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo

Kallithrix said:

Sorry, backtracking a page, but had to respond

They literally mean the same thing (dia / trans = through, phainein / parere = to show / appear).

Click to expand...

I disagree, because language is about more than the literal definition of words based on their roots, and words evolve to have different shades within their meanings.

It's why I love words.

What a word means now may relate to its roots or not. Meanings drift. That's how language works. The ancient Greek root is actually irrelevant to what the word means now, in English. And now, in English, the definition is literally, "1. very sheer and light; almost completely transparent or translucent. [but not actually transparent]; 2. delicately hazy." [Gotten from dictionary.com.]

Because we aren't speaking Greek, or Latin. We're speaking English.

Which of course isn't to say that learning etymology isn't [extremely] useful. In fact, to get back somewhat on topic . . . learning word roots can help you expand your vocab for writing/reading and make certain words become, uh, well, transparent.

Awesome and awful used to mean the same thing.
Nauseated and nauseous used to mean different things.
Diaphanous and transparent mean different things in English, whether they should or not.

It's the ol' "difference between the lightning and the lightning bug" thing. Writers need to consider the connotative meanings of words, not just the denotative. All the hand-wavey, nebulous impressions that words give don't go into the dictionary, but it's those impressions that writers leverage to create a precise effect in their reader's mind.

I've split this digression from the thread.

It's worth remembering that etymology provides lineage, but not current meaning.

Moreover, connotation is exceedingly important in a synonym rich language like English.

angeliz2k said:

Their etymology might be similar, Kallithrix, but in English transparent and diaphanous mean different things. Transparent means see-through; diaphanous means light, and/or almost-see-through, and/or delicate. They're close but not interchangeable.

Click to expand...

Yet, English is configurable. A light, delicately almost-see-through window would be "diaphanousparent". English, for the win.