Language desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 29[edit]

Better word for "primitive"[edit]

I am researching a historical Mennonite settlement that existed well into modern times without electricity, running water, etc.. Looking for a broad term to describe their state of living, I came across our article on primitive culture (which oddly now is a stub that consists of one sentence about a book), but upon looking at the article's history and talk page discussion, I see that using the word "primitive" in this context has, perhaps, some political correctness issues, which would be something I'd like to avoid. The sentence I'm writing would be something like: "The Mennonite settlement existed as a _____________________ well into modern times." Any suggestions? I came up with "pastoral community" but that seems not quite accurate, and also "archaic-society" but that seems to maybe have the same problems as "primitive." I would appreciate some suggestions. Ditch ∝ 18:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not say something like "This Mennonite settlement existed well into modern times without adopting modern technological advances"? --Khajidha (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-industrial is often used in such a context and is not as derogatory as "primitive". Xuxl (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonites would not really be "primitive" according to many definitions of the word, anyway. The problematic connotations of that word usually came into play when it was used to describe band or tribal cultures (on the anthropological band/tribe/chiefdom/state scale) by people who did not admire such cultures... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This particular Mennonite community lived as such by force, rather than choice, in as such that the local authorities were not motivated to plumb basic utilities to the small rural community. I am sure they would have accepted them if it were an option. As such, I have chosen "lived a largely pioneer lifestyle" to describe their living conditions, at least for now. Thanks to all. Ditch ∝ 03:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "simple living" is an accepted term that – unlike "primitive" – does not suggest the lifestyle is looked down upon as being inferior. But it usually has a connotation of being by choice, not by necessity. --Lambiam 13:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eve of Demolition[edit]

Among Wikipedia's category names, "Demolished"/"demolition" coexists, I think awkwardly, with "destroyed"/"destruction". I'm planning to propose a change that I hope would reduce duplication and confusion, but one prerequisite is clarifying differences (if any) in their meanings. Thus the following little exercise in lexical semantics.

Englishes may differ, but in my own:

Demolish and demolition are of course verb and noun respectively, but (at least in the context of buildings) don't differ from each other in meaning.
Likewise, destroy and destruction are of course verb and noun respectively, but (at least in the context of buildings) don't differ from each other in meaning.
"Enemy destruction of the airfield also demolished a nearby church" sounds odder than "Enemy demolition of the airfield also destroyed a nearby church".
Deliberation isn't needed for either term. One can say that an earthquake destroyed or demolished a building without either attributing volition to the earthquake or sounding poetical.
"Decades of neglect demolished the building" sounds odd. Even "Criminal negligence demolished the building" sounds odd.
I might exclaim "The building wasn't just destroyed, it was demolished!" But I'd never say either (a) "The building wasn't destroyed, it was demolished" (without "just"), or (b) "The building wasn't just demolished, it was destroyed!"
While demolition can always be described as destruction, destruction can't always be described as demolition.

I'd be interested in either agreement or disagreement from the "en-N" or "en-5" among you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition usually means purposeful, by ordinary means such as using a wrecking ball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think a tornado can demolish. Only entities with intentionality and skill can demolish. Temerarius (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anyone's feelings, the verb is regularly used with subjects that are (presumably intentionless) forces of nature:

"a rare series of January tornadoes ripped through southeastern Wisconsin and left demolished houses in its wake"^[1]
"The hurricane demolished many buildings and homes"^[2]
"The interior of Interabang Books in the Preston Royal shopping center was demolished by the tornado."^[3]
"He mentioned the neighborhoods of El Cocal, Sandy Bay Sirpy, San Pedro, Libertad as some of the ones demolished by the winds, rains, and the storm surge from Iota."^[4]
"thousands of buildings and housing units heavily damaged or demolished in the earthquake"^[5]
"the ash and pumice that rained down from the volcano near modern-day Naples and demolished the upper levels of the villa"^[6]

I can't comment on their skill. --Lambiam 13:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Language is not strictly binary either/or with no overlap. There is, as always, some overlap between definitions, HOWEVER, in this case, if there is a distinction to be made (and where such a distinction is useful, which in this case I would argue it is) demolition does refer moreso than destroyed to the act of intent. That they can sometimes be used intechangeably does not change that if one needs to make a distinction, that distinction exists. --Jayron 32 13:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments so far (and with a special tip of the hat to Lambiam). Can any of you think of a process of demolition whereby it would be strange to say a building had been "destroyed"? (Before you bristle -- "What tiresome kind of time-wasting or trolling is this?" -- here's a little more about why I'm asking. We currently have both Category:Demolished Christian monasteries and Category:Destroyed Christian monasteries, and that's just one ferinstance of the categorial coexistence of demolition and destruction.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It gets tricky. Think of the many English monasteries which were at least partially demolished on the orders of Henry VIII. Willful destruction. And even if not leveled, they were rendered useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this may show that a definition of demolish is difficult, it doesn't raise any problem for me: what you're calling partial demolition (a kind of demolition), you're also calling "willful destruction" (a kind of destruction); whereas what I'm wondering about is the possibility of some kind of demolition (of a physical structure or anyway a thing, not of an argument, belief or similar) that can't be called destruction. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously enough, the origins of these words are practically synonyms.[7][8] But the words don't necessarily convey the same shade of meaning in modern usage. Destroy seems negative, while demolish seems more neutral. But as a practical matter, demolition seems to be a subset of destruction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Baseball Bugs. Would you also say that demolishing is a subset of destroying? (Of course others are welcome to chime in too. And again, I'm not talking about the demolishing of an argument or similar; rather, it's about the demolishing/destroying of a building, statue, or other feature of a townscape, landscape or similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]