Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   


From:Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
Date:Tuesday, April 24, 2001, 21:09
From: "Raymond Brown" <ray.brown@...>
> >Just because Uusisuom does not stink of rehashed Latin does not mean it
is a
> >'naive' language or somehow bad or inadequate as you seem to imply. > > I grant naive might imply inadequacy - tho not necessarily IMO - but since > when has _naive_ meant _bad_? IME in certain contexts it is regarded as a > positive quality.
IME, when I hear 'naive' now, it's usually used to mean either 'gullible' or 'idealistic due to a lack of understanding how things work in the real world', and almost entirely negative. ["You're so naive" etc.] But in certain contexts (such as old books, and foreign translations) it seems to mean simply 'uninformed, untutored', with no positive or negative connotation whatever: if someone said 'folk art' was 'naive art' I would understand something like "this art (regardless of whatever value it has) was developed outside of the historical framework of our art culture from classical to modern art". [Uusisuom certainly presents itself to me this way.] [Compare the human writeups at with the definition from Webster 1913.] *Muke! --