One thing I’ve noticed in classic science fiction (i.e., Clarke, Heinlein, and/or a lot of things written in the 1940s-1960s) is a strong and rather astonishing tendency to use words that are utterly unnecessary.
For example, when writers of that era talked about making a voyage between stars, there was never a navigator to be seen. Instead, the ships carried “astrogators.” Scientists on Mars never studied geology; they studied “areology.” (Their Moon counterparts used “selenology.”)
People who have some knowledge of word roots can usually figure out the meanings of words like that without any real difficulty. Nevertheless, I find that it takes me out of the story a little bit, whenever I encounter “clever” substitutes for common words.
Language changes over time. It would not be hard to think that new words were coined in to describe new processes.
Given how people are today, it’s hard to make a case that that won’t happen. If you called someone studying Martian landforms a geologist, someone would complain that it was not an accurate term.
Science fiction is that literature of imagination. You should be able to figure out a meaning of a word from context and without handholding. There is nothing wrong with challenging the reader.
Because good writing expands the language. Would have been happy if Capek called them “artificial workers” instead of “robots”?
Because is can be glorious reading. Read Jack Vance sometime. Look at things like “subaqueate” or “optidynes” which are sheer poety.
Well, being clever in that fashion went directly to the heart of what sf was. Extrapolating the present into the future should and would require the coining of new words based off of earthly activities but rejiggered for space travel.
They had nothing in current language to guide them. We now have experience in what travel in space is like, to a certain extent. They had exactly zero. Creating a new vocabulary for the new world was considered the best way to convey that future newness to the contemporary audience. True, some people did it better and less obtrusively than others, but the use of neologisms is less “astonishing” and more obvious and necessary and part of the charm.
I remember when I was about 13yrs old, my older sister read an interesting posited fact, that in 30 years time, most of the jobs we would have by then (in this case, circa 2005) would be things we currently had never heard of. And I often thought back on that and wondered if I could predict what those might be. And I couldn’t, of course.
Turns out it was a lot of IT jobs, internet related jobs, renewable energy, etc, all things related to technologies that hadn’t been developed or seen to be necessary. Since then, we also now have YouTubers, podcasters, Phone app developers and UX designers, and so it goes on.
Anyway, those invented terms in Sci Fi truly do reflect the way our culture develops. In another 30 years, there will be even more jobs with titles we can’t even imagine, as they take us down technological paths not yet decided.
I think I agree with the OP on this one. Sure, new words would be coined for new concepts, but the examples given are just old concepts given a new name based on the etymological fallacy.
I find it unlikely we’d object to “navigator” being used in space, or feel the need to have a different word on every planet for studying the general concept of “geology.” I do think "areologist’ would exist as a word (as it does now), but that would be a term for someone who specialized solely on Martian geology, not the general term.
I get the idea of using special language as part of a future aesthetic, but I definitely can see why examples like this would more take someone out of the work. I think it’s better to save the new words for new concepts, or concepts you want to be viewed in a different way.
Star Trek does it right, inventing “phaser” and “transporter” but still having a ship’s navigator and bringing down specialists in geology.
The term geology is inadequate to describe the study of planetary science. Plenty of planets are mostly made of gases and other fluids, up to and including supercritical and metallic hydrogen. Astronomers seem to prefer the term exoplanetology for the study of planets outside our solar system, and sometimes use ‘planetology’ as a general term to include planets in this solar system.
So I think that the use of geology will have only limited use if and when we start to travel to other solar systems. Probably the term navigation will be supeceded as well, but I’m not sure that astrogation is the best term to replace it. Orbital mechanics is a very complex field of study, in three dimensions and dependent on the curvature of spacetime, and galactography involves about half-a-dozen different measures of distance (including co-moving distance, light-travel distance, angular dimension distance and so on). Using navigation as a term for this field of study seems kind of reductive.
BTW, I thought coming in that this was going to be a smeerp thread, but the examples given in the OP were, I think, reasonable evolution of language for new situations.
Until we go back to having “decimate” mean precisely “destroy one-tenth of”, I’m fine with using “navigate” for things other than ships sailing on water. Navigate is used all the time for careful driving of vehicles, or for having the second person in the car instruct the driver where to go by keeping their focus on the signage and the navigation materials while the driver watches the road for hazards.
Geology to me is the study of processes involving planet-sized aggregations of solid or molten materials, and so while the root of the word refers to the planet we currently live on, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be meaningfully applied to similar study of other celestial bodies. A geologist might specialize as a selenologist, but they’re still a geologist.
I didn’t intend my reference in saying “might” to mean in a fictional world at all. I was talking about actual scientists. There’s not much to study about the Moon other than it as a celestial object, or in the geological-equivalent sense. Yes, selenology may be originally the study of the Moon’s orbital characteristics, but it’s perfectly reasonable to use as the subset of geology that focuses on the crust and such of the Moon, and that use is cited in Wikitionary, even if it’s marked as a less common use of the term.
Heck, we actually refer to “land navigation” and that’s what the Army calls its course about How To Not Get Lost And Die. So there’s nothing that would prevent just using a modifier word or prefix as in “space navigation” or “astronavigation”.
OTOH, you do expect neologisms to arise, either whole-cloth or by repurposing of other phrases, within trades or sectors as both technologies and social mores change. Just think of podcaster, influencer, troll, sandboxing, siloing, etc.
One thing to note is that this is all very dependent on what are the lanuage’s conventions for neologism or for derivative wordings. And living languages are tricky creatures, some times they’ll welcome a neologism, others they’ll repurpose words or phrases for something different, or make up portmanteaus and yet other times they will reach for auxiliary expanatory modifiers (web developer), and that’s not counting straight out loanwords if some other language came up with something better first.
