EddyTeddyFreddy. Eh, already tried. Won’t fit in the “title” box.
schadenfreude is like the ugliest German cognate kidnapped into pimp daddy America’s International Brothel of Words. All the other stolen words get some love on the regular. Feng shui? New girl, popular, out every night. Okra? Been busy since the 1600s. *schadenfreude? * Sitting unwanted next to her ugly cousin fahrvenugen.
Sorry, I have no idea what your point is. I thought that you were disagreeing with Liberal, who pointed out that much of the English language comes from other languages. When you said:
I thought you were trying to distinguish between cognates, which are words that are “related in origin, as certain words in genetically related languages descended from the same ancestral root; for example, English name and Latin nmen”, and borrowed words, which are not just related by a common root, but are identical.
But now you’re conflating the two things, so I really don’t know what you’re trying to say.
Yes, that’s what a cognate is.
Yes, and schadenfreude is such a word.
Right. Nobody would ever accept a word into the English language that looks and sounds German. I learned that in kindergarten. 
Doh :smack: I meant to say that schadenfreude is accepted, not that it is a cognate.
Knorf. You forgot deja vu, which is what I’m experiencing.
I accept all those other cognates you listed because they: 1) are consistently used without italics and 2) are widely disseminated by the millions in America, so much that 3) the average American can tell you what they mean. Like, say, glee.
Schadenfreude is NONE of those things! It’s an elistist, marginalized, obscure, little-used, infrequently acknowledged emotion anywhere outside Germany, academia and one seventh season episode of The Simpsons. Maybe not even that well known in Germany. You get twice as many hits Googling it in English than German – but it’s apparently still under 300,000 hits in BOTH languages in the entire world wide web.
Again: forget the dictionary. Dictionaries can be wrong. Forget the theory and look at the practice. A foreign cognate treated as a foreign concept in print and electronic media is not truly contemporary American English – not in the Information Age. It potentially can be, and someday might be but right now it ain’t.
Christ. You know schadenfreude isn’t even listed in the appendix of Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know (1987)? This from an author who doesn’t even list poi, ennui, vogue, Rashoman, fatwah, gotterdammerang, Consigliori or The Kama Sutra.
blowero. Read my post above as it may address some of your concerns. And “cognate” refers equally valid to two types of foreign words, much as “noun” can be used to categorize persons, places, things, and ideas. I’m not conflating things when I consider both.
The word is kindergarten. Americans pronounce it “kindergarden”, much as we normally soften the t’s in butter and party. It only looks German and spelled German: it’s pronounced with a distinct American variation and – most importantly – everybody knows what it is without explanation.
A. No it doesn’t. Look in the dictionary; “cognates” are related words, not identical words.
B. Then I still don’t understand what your point was vis a vis Liberal’s post.
I have no idea what the definition of “noun” has to do with it.
Yes, I know. That’s why I wrote it.
Some, perhaps, but most pronounce it with a “t” sound.
Yes, Americans use a softer “t” sound than Germans. But then, we use a different “r” sound when we say schadenfreude, for that matter. So what’s your point?
And so is schadenfreude.
Whether “everybody knows what it is” is not the determining factor for whether a word is considered part of the English language or not. For example, you didn’t know what the word “converse” meant in another thread. That doesn’t mean “converse” is not an English word.
What did I say about dictionaries sometimes being wrong?
Look, blowero. All cognates are related to words in other languages, likr German. But SOME are identical, or nearly identical, borrowed words, like the spanish words burro, chocolate and negro. Cite1. There are many false cognates as well, which are derived from the same roots but have different meanings, as in French. Cite2.
All nouns are persons, places, things or ideas… four kinds are nouns. Simliarly, there are two kinds of cognates. This was offered in the (vain) hopes you would, by yourself, unassisted, be able to relate the two concepts. You keep insisting on there being one kind of cognate when this is patently false.
This statement of yours: “Whether “everybody knows what it is” is not the determining factor for whether a word is considered part of the English language or not,” is wrong. Cite3.
Among average American English speakers, the term schandenfruede is by no means so widely used and understood that it should be unitalicized. Despite what some dictionaries may say actual use, practice, understanding, dissemination and style manual recommendations all suggest this and similar words should be treated as foreign.
Regarding the other thread, I stand by my observation that “converse” is not as clear a word choice as “reverse,” just as I now make the observation that you can be intractably picayune. If you wish to bring up matters from that other thread – again – resurrect that other thread and I might join you, provided discourse doesn’t include another distasteful fit of pique on your part.
Otherwise I may see fit to raise my “voice” again.
Won’t be nice like last time.
Obviously I’m a gentleman (and, as it happens, a teacher.) Therefore these are appropriate words to use.
While it may be fun to have a cyberfoe, I would prefer to have one who knew that schadenfreude was an English word. 
As indeed are zugswang, en passant and zweischenzug.
“‘oy’ DasIQjaj”
Heh. Pot. Kettle.
It would be great if dictionaries recorded all connotations, but it’d make the OED into a building sized tome instead of a room sized tome. So I wouldn’t be surprised if dictionaries didn’t record glee as “excessive happieness” whether or not it has connotations of naughtiness. I mean, you’re not even told when to use ‘tall’ and when to use ‘high’ except for from a couple of examples.
Et tu, glee? You wound me, sir. Recognizing en passant and knowing your passion, I assumed zugzwang and zweizenzug were chess moves, too. My friend, obscure chess jargon using German and French terms is not any American English I’d been taught. I suspect your worldview has been warped by your obsession and I suddenly fear for the names you might bestow on your hapless household pets or children. Still, I will not presume any great estimation of the vocabularies of your fellow countrymen who may know the terms you mentioned, though I have heard Ozzy and the rest of the Osbournes speak and thus hold profound reservations accordingly.
Uvula Donor. More at, “the assured, black, well-seasoned pot is calling the petulant kettle rusty and full of hot air.”
Shade. I’ll tell you which you use. “Tall” is how I feel. “High” describes the rest of these bastards. They should share that ganja they’re smoking.
Next we’ll have some damn Trekkies in here claiming bat’leth, katra and oomox are English.
Philistines. You are derailing this thread from glee. You gleefully do this, as evidenced by these damned smilies cropping up since glee’s first post! Tossers. Motherfuckers. Schweinehund-- !
O.K., I have a cite and you have a cite. I don’t really care, because the QUESTION I ASKED YOU was what your point was vis a vis Liberal’s post. And you still haven’t answered the question.
YOU were the one who seemed to be making a distinction between cognates, and words that come from other languages. Now you are jumping up and down and screaming about how those two things are the same. So again, WHAT’S YOUR POINT?
So what?
You strike me as a guy who took just enough freshman English classes to learn a couple buzz words before flunking out, and now you want to impress everyone. Sorry, not impressed.
Again. What’s your point?
Uh, that was YOUR statement, genius.
Your OP is all about complaining that we don’t have a word that means the same as schandenfruede, and yet you’re having a tantrum about not wanting it to be part of the language. Yeah, that makes sense.
And I stand by my observation that you’re WRONG.
Heh heh - see Uvula’s post.
And I’ll remind you that YOU are the one who brought up the “converse” vs. “reverse” thing, totally out of the blue, when it had nothing to do with the thread topic. And then you call me picayune. Damn, you’re funny.
No thanks - I got out of that thread because you were having a meltdown. Judging by your childish use of large fonts, you seem headed in that direction here as well. Maybe you should take a few deep breaths.
blowero. No, no, no, son. Don’t parse my statements about you like you usually do with everything else. Be man enough to accept this about yourself: you are intractably picayune. You are petty and you don’t change.
Time and again I present cites, examples, point out like simliar categorization, real world usage and observe how foreign language cognates have to satisfy a set of criteria to be considered truly a part of an adopted language. Do you challenge this idea? No! You focus on “cognate.” I scrutinize many details; you think about three things. That’s “picayune.” You consistently refuse to employ the benefits of inductive thinking as well as deductive reasoning. Look over your posts where you, time and again, respond to only part of what I’m saying, harping on “what’s your point?” and accusing me of flunking out of college. I didn’t believe you were really being that obtuse and unable to recognize patterns. But come to think of it you pulled the same stunts in pizzabrat’s thread last week.
I’m bored with you, son. Good-bye.
Some more of the patented Askia maturity, I see. We used to do that “son” thing in 3rd grade, if I recall correctly. You did it in the other thread, too, so I guess it makes you feel like a “man” or something. Well knock yourself out, then.
Yes, you incorrectly harp on me about “converse” vs. “reverse”, and then about “cognates” vs. “borrowed words”. Then you act like it’s some sort of big deal, even after I tell you I don’t really care because it’s not the point. And you say I’m picayune. Yeah, maybe if you keep saying it enough, it’ll come true?
Uh, no, that’s pretty much exactly what YOU did.
Only because you never answered the question. You just kept pretending that the argument was about the definition of nouns and other such nonsense. You don’t want to get around to what your actual point is, because you don’t have one.
Don’t know what you mean, but I do know that you seem to be incapable of parsing a simple dictionary definition, despite your delusion that you are some sort of expert in the English language.
Must be a different thread, because in the thread I read, you acted like a big baby, nitpicked me about silly, irrelevant grammar details (which you weren’t even right about), screamed at me in oversize fonts, and used grade-school level insults, at which point I left in disgust.
I don’t think we should judge whether a word is obscure just because you don’t know it!
In any English language chess book (including the US), the words above will be given without explanation or italics. They are part of the English language.
glee. I called them obscure because answer.com’s Language directory lists* zugzwang* in its “obscure” section and doesn’t list zweizenzug at all (its probably misspelled, but I couldn’t figure out the correct spelling.) Googling didn’t help me find it at all, and Googling zugzwang only netted me 13,000 hits out of 8 billion webpages! That’s pretty obscure.
glee. Did you see this post of mine? I’ll boldface the revelant passage.
It would not appear those two terms from chess jargon are widely used enough and understood outside chess circles to become part of the English language, sorry.
Kwanzaa wasn’t invented until the 1966s by an African-American and I still wouldn’t have called it an English word until it started appearing in the black newspaper and magazine press in the mid-70s. Even though the seven principles are an intregal part of the holiday (ujima, umoja, kujichgulia, etc.) I would definitely italicize them and define them on first reference in any article appearing for a non-African-American audience.
We do have a word for Schadenfreude!
It’s Schadenfreude.
Though I agree with the OP about German having this wonderful way of combining native word elements into new words.