Understanding the word Schmutzdecke

  • Thread starter Thread starter fresh_42
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the term "Schmutzdecke," which refers to a layer of dirt that forms on filters, impacting their efficiency. Participants explore the word's etymology, noting its Yiddish roots and the dual meanings of "Schmutz" (dirt) and "Decke" (cover). There is curiosity about the necessity of importing such terms into English and the complexities of language evolution, including the influence of anglicisms in German. The conversation also touches on language regulation in different countries and the humorous aspects of linguistic quirks. Overall, the thread highlights the intricacies of language and the cultural exchanges that shape it.
  • #51
almostvoid said:
Are you saying the -past- is the -came from- and therefore not being in the present -is- invalidates the comment? Well pardon if so- you see English is my second language. I not as perfect as you. Maybe the second language you are familiar with is better than my clumsy not grammatically correct English. Maybe we can compare notes?
Kind of yes. I was talking about present PF language, which is modern English.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Stavros Kiri said:
Kind of yes. I was talking about present PF language, which is modern English.
which is spelled with American--ese morphological evolving mutating changes. [not a criticism just an observation and comment] so that really American is the modern and English the progenitor thereof.
 
  • #53
almostvoid said:
so that really American is the modern and English the progenitor thereof.
I don't think this is unambiguously true. After all, colonies or people in exile tend to conserve a much more antique language than that spoken in the mother country.
 
  • #54
almostvoid said:
which is spelled with American--ese morphological evolving mutating changes. [not a criticism just an observation and comment] so that really American is the modern and English the progenitor thereof.
I don't think PF specifies or limits to either one ... :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and almostvoid
  • #55
DrDu said:
I don't think this is unambiguously true. After all, colonies or people in exile tend to conserve a much more antique language than that spoken in the mother country.
interesting. The US being colonial historically as well.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri

Similar threads

Replies
35
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top